Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 4 April 6 >

April 5

edit


Template:Infobox amateur baseball player

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox amateur baseball player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two instances. Redundant to {{Infobox baseball biography}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox action sports athlete

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox action sports athlete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little used; poor colour-contrast; redundant to {{Infobox sportsperson}} and/ or {{Infobox athlete}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Doctor Who actors

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This sort of thing isn't useful as a navbox - most of the people in "Other productions" aren't known for their association with the programme. List of actors who have played the Doctor handles the subject of the radio plays, Comic Relief spoofs, etc. adequately. I recommend either deleting or removing all non-canonical Doctors. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The navbox is a bit of a mess at the moment but it is preferable to the category that was added yesterday. I want to support the removing all non-canonical Doctors option. But, as I thought about it it has to be said that the Peter Cushing films and the Trevor Martin stage play are both notable and worthy of inclusion. On the other hand I do agree that the parodies and spoofs are not. Choosing to include the actors of one spoof and not another has POV problems. They also have their own article here Doctor Who spoofs. I would suggest this discussion would be better served on the talk page for the template rather than as a deletion discussion. We could hammer out the details there without having complete deletion being a last option. MarnetteD | Talk 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no reason not to list the non-canonical Doctors, as long as they've official spoofs (Curse of Fatal Death, for instance) and not fan productions, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SOV the question that comes to mind about spoofs is do we draw the line somewhere? Under the wording that you have used Lenny Henry, Jon Culshaw and any of the dozens of others who have spoofed him would merit inclusion. The potential for navbox bloat is frightening. Perhaps a line entitled spoofs with a link to the article would suffice. MarnetteD | Talk 14:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is no such thing as canon, that said the navbox could be improved such that the breakdown is the TV series, films, stage etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GraemeLeggett - suggest Comic Relief has a row to itself. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most actor articles don't have any navboxes at the bottom of them. If they did then they would end up with quite a few on each article for all the different TV series or films they appeared in. So I don't think this navbox should be added to each of the actors listed in the navbox. Especially the actors who just appeared in spoofs, they shouldn't have such a navbox on their articles. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and comment If you don't like the coontent of a template - discuss this on the templates talk page, or be bold and change it. It's rather stupid to say "I don't agree with everyone on it, so it should be deleted". I have no idea why this is even here. Get some discussion going, talk about who should/should not be on it - perhaps just link to a general "other doctors" article rather than individual ones if needed - but why on Earth delete the whole thing? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although per GraemeLeggett the navbox should be edited to be more specific w.r.t. spoofs, theatrical, radio productions etc. additional to the official TV productions. Polyamorph (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

AFL player infoboxes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AFL player 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox afl player NEW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox AFL player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox afl player and Template:Infobox afl player NEW with Template:Infobox AFL player.

Three templates for one purpose because "there isn't a consensus on which is better". Prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL/Archive 5#Infoboxes. Time this was resolved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably prefer the {{Infobox afl player NEW}} one, but a bigger problem is that they don't all use the same parameters, so is there some bot or automated process that will be able to correctly, seamlessly and without any issues merge the information into the chosen infobox? It isn't a small issue - player NEW is transcluded 1753 times, AFL player 2 2232 times and AFL player 191 times.The-Pope (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure such technical details could be resolved. As far as bots go, my bot could do it. We would just need to agree on the preferred template, and figure out the necessary translation of parameters. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andy. Seems we are all in agreement about which template is preferable so what is the next step? Jevansen (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the next step is for someone to create a merged version in a sandbox for everyone to take a look at. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to merge this as well.

Template:Infobox Australian Football League umpire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Colonial and State Governors of Rhode Island

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colonial and State Governors of Rhode Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. This combines two lists from what was technically the same area, but not named the same, one a "colony", the other a "state." They were in different countries then. One under Great Britain, the other under the United States. The titles weren't the same. One was an appointed Royal Governor. The other, an elected Governor for a set term. The constitutions were different. Under Great Britain, there was none, under the US, there were two: Rhode Island's and the United States. Combining the two is counter-historic. There was a revolution in between with the Royal Governor being expelled and replaced. If the Royal Governor could have caught up with his replacement, he would have hung him!
Fortunately, Great Britain did not do this on a multi-colony scale or we would be presented with the spectre of "Governor Howe" being "replaced" by "President Washington!" Student7 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reason to delete this template. There is no existing template for the colonial governors of Rhode Island, and such a template is needed, and that is why I have created this template. Even though a separate template exists for the STATE governors of Rhode Island, I have nevertheless also included the state governors in a separate section of the subject template so that anyone doing research on all of the governors can quickly see the big picture. There are state governors of Rhode Island who were sons of colonial governors. The above commenter complains about different governments, etc., etc. Totally irrelevant. There is a continuum from the first governor in 1638 to the current governor. One of these so called "royal governors" happened to be a signer of the Declaration of Independence.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When we list the governors of Hawaii, do we go back to the Kings? Alaska? to Tsars (or appointed "Governor"? Why is it easier to see that a different government there means a change is lineage and so hard to see in the continental US? {{Governors of Guam}} have no Spanish antecedents. Nor should they. Different country. Different constitution(s). I doubt that Presidents of Germany go back to Charlesmagne. It "pretty" to think of it that way. And very television-ish. A good indication that we shouldn't be doing it because it isn't logical. The media doesn't have to make sense. We are supposed to be the alternative. Student7 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Student7 has pointed out, these were not the same position. A colonial governors template would be fine, as is a state governors template. But not a combined template. To list them all together is not accurate, and to do so is borderline OR. Novaseminary (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the fact that user Novaseminary was recently reversed for frivolously deleting the entire British America article due to inadequate knowledge of the historical period at issue, Sarnold17 is absolutely right and his recommendation to Keep should be supported. This is an issue of constitutional history. The King Charles II charter directly informs the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Some of the common law rulings of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations are still followed today in Rhode Island and other courts of law. Thank you to Sarnold17 for taking the time to make a more informative and verifiably accurate template showing the finite and complete history of executive leadership of the territory, colony and state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
  • Comment. Sarnold17 concurs with deletion and has enhanced another template that will suffice. See his note in the template under discussion. And on the discussion page. Student7 (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivelink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only on the creator's talk page, who has not edited since 2009. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Red Bull Air Race Pilot

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Red Bull Air Race Pilot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox aviator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Red Bull Air Race Pilot with Template:Infobox aviator.
No need for a separate template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_5&oldid=1078571740"