Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

May 26[edit]

Template:WelcomeTemplateTable[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, no objections. delldot ∇. 01:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:WelcomeTemplateTable (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template was being used on about four template talk pages, and (perhaps due to backend updates) was not working properly. I attempted to fix it, but found it was easier to just replace the transclusions with the equivalent wikicode using {{tlsx}}. Hence, it is no longer needed. If someone wants to fix the template, I am happy to go back to using it, but it seems to be more trouble than it is worth. Thanks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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:California business citation[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) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:California business citation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Specific-source template, one use after two years -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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 Internet celebrity[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 per this and discussion on the corresponding talk page Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Internet celebrity (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox person (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose replacing {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} with {{Infobox person}}.
Redundant. All the IIC fields can be replicated using those of IP Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: I changed the TfD parameters to avoid confusion on the many articles which transclude it - diff  Chzz  ►  20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
  • Comment. Looking at the transclusions, I note that some of the uses of {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} are not for individual people. I saw some groups, a rabbit, and at least one fruit. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless, the IP template can support: Birthdates(which I'm expecting it should), other names(like other names assoicated with the internet celebrity), aliases, Period Active (this one is a big concern of mine), host services, genre(s), Notable work(s), and official site. If all of these can be done with IP template, I will rescind my oppose. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - redundant; can be covered using other templates. Airplaneman 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Infobox Person does not currently support webalias (although other_names is an alternative), host service, genre, meme, meme date and signature phrase. Would such fields be appropriate for Infobox Person, a generic biography info box? --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • All those can be replicated using the fields of {{Infobox Person}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
      • So new fields will be created in Infobox Person to support these parameters? As it stands, Infobox Person does not support them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to add them; they can be replicated using the existing fields of {{Infobox Person}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. - The Infobox for Internet Celebrity is a necessary distinguishable system from other actors and the like in other mainstream media. If I was to say, create a Actor infobox for Peter Oakley (geriatric1927) using an actor, people might get confused. Did he act in a movie? Is he a musician? (the answer to the second question is yes, but that's another discussion). We should strive to have many different infoboxes to ensure one does not become confused with one person's main genre or media. DynamoJax (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Is Peter Oakley a person? The proposed replacement is {{Infobox Person}}; not {{Infobox Actor}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes. But to use the generic "person template" when one's main field of notability is the web can be confusing. I was merely using an example as a demonstration, I apologize if such demonstration is not entirely on the mark. DynamoJax (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - redundant to existing infobox templates. As for fields like 'meme', 'running gag' and 'signature phrase', we do not need them - they're entirely unencyclopaedic. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep – First of all, there's no real need to merge it into Infobox person. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Second, IP is missing a bunch of parameters that Infobox Internet celebrity has. Sure we can add them into IP, but why should we? Many of these parameters are specific only to Internet celebrities, such as Meme, Hosting service(s), Genre(s), Web alias(es), Signature phrase, etc. Merging all of this into one template would inconvenience the many editors working with Infobox person. This template is not redundant because it covers specific things not mentioned in Infobox person, similarly to Infobox musical artist, Infobox writer, Infobox economist, and many others. Sorafune +1 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • " Merging all of this into one template would inconvenience … many editors": Since that's not being proposed; your claim is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment See Template talk:Infobox person for a proposal for the creation of "modules" which would facilitate merging this infobox with "infobox person", in the case that the celebrity is a person. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we should hold on to see if they successfully implement the module system. If they do, then I will suggest merge. ---wL<speak·check> 06:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I would also support a merge if the module system is implemented. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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:Refbox[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. delldot ∇. 01:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Refbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Violates MOS:SCROLL; unused. If there is ever consensus to inplement scrolling or collapsing, then the feature should be added to {{reflist}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The |refs= parameter suppresses the references tag and collapses the box, thus in that mode it is redundant with {{hidden}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
{{Hidden}} is too generic and thus unlikely to be consistently used for this purpose. – allennames 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with a {{collapse top}} {{collapse bottom}} around the reference list on the talk page in question. This is the most common method currently used on talk pages, and I see no reason why it wouldn't work here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of use, redundancy with other collapse templates, and concerns that use on content pages would violate MOS:SCROLL. --RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
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.