Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 26



Template:Newmessage

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete per WP:SNOW and so many borderline speedy criteria it's not even funny (which the template certainly isn't). IronGargoyle 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * :: Discussion closer mutters some swear words about clicking the template before he was going to delete it because he thought it was a real message ::

Short and sweet: It's an incredibly irritating template designed specifically to be placed on user pages in order to annoy other Wikipedia editors, and with no other purpose or use.  Mi re ma r e  23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Templates designed solely to be jerks or have fun (depending on your perspective) should probably be in user space, not wikipedia space. --Haemo 00:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just subst the template onto the one user page it's used on and then delete it. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per CSD T1, I think one could say that it's inflammatory. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 06:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as inappropriate for template space. I think this is actually a G4, but I can't remember what the name of the previous template was and so can't find the relevant TfD, and it wouldn't make sense to speedy something on a vague memory when there isn't a hurry anyway. --ais523 08:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (snowball). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, not worth the discussion. —AldeBaer 07:47, 28 July 2007 (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:Johannesburg weatherbox

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Single-use template that has been replaced — MJCdetroit 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Shalom Hello 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dfrg.msc 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:04, 27 July 2007 (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.

Harry Potter refs

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was No consensus. Mike Peel 09:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any point to these templates. Incidently, as they have been created by anons, not sure who to notify. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify. A specific reference format for one book is not required. Other templates, such as cite book do this more generically. As I say, what's the point? I should also point out that the the HP4ref, etc. templates use another template, which is bad practice. So for all those who think I don't have a valid deletion reason, I do. Hopefully this can now be put to rest. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, if you look at their usage they're quite handy. They're used to reference bits in the book in a way which I think would be quite unwielding otherwise.  The best place to notify would be the wikiproject. PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And have a thousand HP fanatics attack me? I don't think so! :-) OK, I'll do that. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep they do seem to work, also be good to close this one quickly because the multiple tfd's re spoiling pages such as Molly Weasley Rich Farmbrough, 15:55 26 July 2007 (GMT).
 * I'm using standard practice here. If I didn't add the TFD tags, then I'd be screamed at for sure. I should point out that it's not exactly my fault that there are two TFD tags on half of those templates, as the templates use a template. Hardly good practice. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep useful for loads of Harry Potter-related articles. Peacent 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't we use a generic cite book template? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'm still concerned, however, that the deletion of these templates would cause massive mess in about a hundred of Harry Potter articles. It would take a lot of time to clean up and convert them into the standard . Peacent 05:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The templates used to use cite book. It shouldn't be hard to convert... - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete. Peacent 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An unfortunate way to do this; it would be better to transclude, so that references can be adjusted (for example, some people will cite paperback editions, and eventually there will be editions with different pagination); but harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; "not seeing the point" of something on Wikipedia is not valid reason for deletion nomination; nominator should discuss on a talk page if he or she does understand something. Robert K S 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have clarified my reasoning. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion reason is faulty. I'm sorry but that arguement could be seen as "I don't like it" and therefore is not a vaild argument.  Æon  Insanity Now!  20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have clarified my reasoning. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Re "therefore": WP:AADD is not a collection of logical axioms, only general arguments. Regardless, though, these templates are a good illustration of the point of templates: to display similar content across multiple pages. They are useful and should be kept. Grace notes T § 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh you misunderstood the pint I as trying to make but thats ok. Æon  Insanity Now!  21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but "I don't like it" isn't the nom's deletion reason. At least... it doesn't look like that to me. [cue shifty eyes] The argument appeared to be "it's not useful", which is potentially a valid reason to delete a template. However, I think that the template is useful, contrary to the nom's logic. The nominator may not like the template, but that's not his deletion argument, and proving a non-existent argument to be a non-existent logical fallacy is a tad fruitless. But that's my perception of the circumstances&mdash;I might be dead wrong! Grace notes T § 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment. I have rectified my deletion nomination reason. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A specific template for referencing one article? Hardly a good idea. You'll also notice that the templates use a template. Very Bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as they are used several times in at least one article. (signed out, can be verified if needed)
 * Strong Keep You must be joking, these templates are used all over the place and they're actually very useful as an expedient short-hand for denoting a reference to an individual HP novel. Not really sure why they've been nominated at all?  A u l a T P N 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The templates use another template, which is bad practice. That's a pretty good reason to at least remove the bottom template. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a sincere question: where is it written that templates within templates are bad practice? I can see how transclusion recursion would be a serious issue, and why there is good reason to subst many templates that would otherwise needlessly chew up processing time; however, nesting of templates is an important and desirable functionality and, I think, has its proper use.  All family trees on Wikipedia use nested templates. Robert K S 06:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever since I started editing Wikipedia, the cardinal rule has been "don't nest templates". Maybe things have changed. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cardinality rejected, in fact. Grace notes T § 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial keep - these facilitate referencing in a topic vulnerable to fancruft. Structural problems (such as using a subtemplate) are easily solved by someone with some template experience and perhaps a bot to help fix references which would be broken. If the fixing of the problem involves the deletion of a subtemplate, it'll then be uncontroversial to delete an unused and deprecated template - no big deal.  Nihiltres ( t .l ) 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Because they're pretty handy. Anyone else want to snowball it, seeing as how everyone has voted to keep? --Piemanmoo 08:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not. A few days won't hurt. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Cite book works just as well.  T Rex  | talk  10:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seriously, what speaks against using cite book instead? And it seems like a bad precedent. Next thing you know, everyone creates a corresponding template for their favourite work (of fiction, I might add). Btw: I noincluded the TfD tags in the template pages. —AldeBaer 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed HPFref and HPQref are not nominated for deletion, Ta bu shi da yu probably overlooked them. However, in addition to regularly using cite book, one alternative idea would e.g. be to create a section containing all of those references on WP:Harry. Also, the templates should either be substed or autosubsting, as the traffic of the much-frequented HP pages increases with each transcluded template. —AldeBaer 21:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, the templates could be merged into one single page, with the individual references being available by using parameters. E.g. would result in the first and third book references being shown. —AldeBaer 21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but add COinS mark-up. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — please use cite book instead. Andrwsc 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pragmatically, the reference format is not required but significantly more convenient for the reader. I don't think that we need to worry about setting precedent when there won't be another such work around for years. Anyway, we can shoot things down when they become a problem, not when they might conceivably cause an indirect not-insurmountable problem some time in the future. --Kizor 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The templates are needed, and aren't causing any harm. Sebi  &#91; talk &#93; 23:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The templates are not needed (cite web), and they cause at least a little harm in that they add to server load. —AldeBaer 02:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They add more server load than cite web? (I assume you mean cite book.) I really doubt it; these can be cached and renewed easily, while cite book takes a bit of parsing. And the server/database load of keeping the templates is nothing compared to the load imposed by replacing them. When you worry about performance, it's extremely easy to lose perspective! Your other argument involves Occam's razor, which I think is a great philosophy to apply when dealing with templates. To me, though, it seems like entities are multiplied beyond necessity when cite book is used, passing the same dozen-or-so parameters dozens of times. Grace notes T § 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that they "don't cause any harm" is an argument you should avoidPaolobueno 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that the argument presented by those advocating the deletion is that the templates do cause harm by being cumbersome, Spebi's statement seems completely justified to me. WP:AADD applies more to articles than it does to templates. Grace notes T § 18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. We can convert them to cite book in twenty years when the articles quiet down.  I note they are not alone, see Category:Attribution templates. (SEWilco 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC))
 * All of the templates have now been "expanded" (i.e. manually substed), so HP ref is not needed any longer. I'm currently setting up a single combined template, which will include all of the references, switchable as parameters. —AldeBaer 03:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like announce that I've created a template, HPref, that can be used in place of the multitude of templates discussed here.
 * I tried HPref in my sandbox. It didn't appear to work right to me.  I threw some ref tags around it, and it looked even weirder. --Ken g6 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, there are the related unused templates
 * HP unlinked
 * HP1 unlinked
 * HP2 unlinked
 * HP3 unlinked
 * HP4 unlinked
 * HP5 unlinked
 * HP6 unlinked
 * HP7 unlinked
 * HPF unlinked
 * HPQ unlinked
 * which are not included in this TfD, but should be deleted sooner or later. —AldeBaer 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert templates to use, then subst and delete. --Farix (Talk) 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. They may be pretty unique in WP, but they do serve a purpose. Rehevkor 02:25, 4 August 2007 (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:Attribution 2.5 License

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundant template, see Cc-by-2.5. Also, it's linking to the wrong (not yet confirmed as free) CC attribution version 3.0 (for which there is already a template, Cc-by-3.0).— —AldeBaer 08:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The cc-by-2.5 template looks nicer; I'll defer to AldeBaer on the substantive issue because I have no idea what that's all about. Shalom Hello 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the other version as to not break existing links / make it a viable alt name. MessedRocker (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a redirect, but didn't do it because there were only three transclusion of the template (it appears someone replaced those in the meantime, so there are no transclusions left). As for viable alt name: Why not, but speaking personally, I'd prefer as few of those template pages as possible, because to many licensing is a difficult topic already, and additional redirects only make the situation more confusing. —AldeBaer 16:06, 27 July 2007 (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:People of the Three Kingdoms

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was keep. There does not seem to be consensus for a split either. Perhaps making the template collapsable would be an idea? IronGargoyle 01:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a bulky navigational template with such a ill-defined inclusion criteria that it doesn't serve any good purpose. What exactly is "Prominent people"? It would be pretty easy to look it over and find names that are wholly unrelated to one another, except for the historical accident of living in China in the same historical era. Also, whatever purpose this template serves can be more efficiently met by careful use of the existing categories. _dk 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said. Delete as per nom. Ling.Nut 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see where you're coming from saying its hard to descipher who is "prominent", so if this was an actual page I would more than likely vote delete, but being it a template, i feel factualization is not as strict and I also feel it is very useful to navigate you're way around the "important" figures, especially for those who are "uninformed". Many of you may disagree with me and thats fine, you're allowed you're opinion, but after working on the template and distributing it to various pages the other day, I realized it may actually come in handy, despite its "bulkiness" and hard to desipher title. --EveryDayJoe45 03:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "uninformed" wouldn't want to wade through a sea of unknown Chinese names. Those who actually know what the names are, in my opinion, would use the search bar instead. Also, "factualization" must be strict, since this template shows up in article space. _dk 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as strict as a page would have to be, also the "uninformed" was just an example, that being said, how do you know someone needing info on the characters for some reason couldn't find the template easy for navigational use? --EveryDayJoe45 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; looks like a useful navigation template for a very large and complex cast, almost all of whom, except perhaps the bottom row of Others, have their notability within the story made clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not a navigational template for characters in a story, but people in a historical time period. We don't have similar templates like "Prominent people of the Hundred Years War" or "Prominent people of the American Revolutionary War" or things like that. _dk 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, it really includes both the novel and historical uses, basically anything dealing with the time period, but seems to be more leniant to the novel. Also if you could find a descent list of people important in the revolutionary war I would have no problem with that either, but that would be much more difficult to create than this template so if you were to attempt, have fun. The Three Kingdoms is a perfect example for this kind of template because of the various kingdoms; and the issues, extreme amount of feats, and loyalty factors involved. --EveryDayJoe45 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're too obsessed with fiction. _dk 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice, But we're still friends. --EveryDayJoe45 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Criticism of the template is well-taken, and another major problem that I see with the template is that inclusion is arbitrary.  Nevertheless, it's not completely arbitrary, and it was an important period in history and Chinese cultural consciousness alike.  --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it'll be better if we split the template into smaller templates that are more well-defined and where the links actually have much to do with each other. _dk 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Split perhaps a split into Shu, Wei, Wu templates with an "other" template with people who weren't associated with a dynast also including people from Han.  T Rex  | talk  10:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't taht be worse? I mean obviosuly some of you disagree with the template, so wouldn't breaking into 4 make it worse, since there will now be 4 templates as opposed to 1. --EveryDayJoe45 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we can put one (not four) small template on a page rather than one bulky template. _dk 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then there wouldn't be any "criteria" for inclusion on a template. The Wei template would include everyone associated with Wei, no questions asked, no original research over the meaning of prominent.  T Rex  | talk  01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're being serious about that, since such a template would be horrid. _dk 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe them a Wei generals template? emperors template? politicians template for each dynasty.  T Rex  | talk  16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The word 'prominent' is incredibly subjective. Even the categories are very badly defined. Why is someone advisers and not generals? People switched sides all the time in the novels, you can't really put a tag on some of them. Suredeath 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ummm, because some of them were advisers and not generals. Zhuge Liang was an adviser not a general. --EveryDayJoe45 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference isn't as clear cut as you'd think. Advisers can lead armies and be generals, and generals can still advise his lord. After Liu Bei's death, Zhuge Liang advises no one as he is the one in charge out in the field. Neither are Zhou Yu or Lu Xun when they were leading armies. _dk 00:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you feel thats the case, you could just merge the adviser and general sections into one called "officers". --EveryDayJoe45 02:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep there are perhaps some editing problems, but these pages have been a frequent source of confusion for people who do not know the context, and the template helps. for those who do know the context, it helps to navigate the very large amount of material.DGG (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep or possible split This nav box not only provides ease to navigate, it also tells u who was what position and of what kingdom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may say it tells you the position and of what kingdom, and I'm going to turn around and say it's misleading to most people. People are not binded to a kingdom. Even Guan Yu has served Cao Cao. Liu Bei can be both general and ruler. Where are you going to put Lady Sun? The roles of advisers and generals are almost interchangeable.Suredeath 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: It's very useful and easy to use. And like Chochopl said, it tells the position and the kingdom of each person. Armando.O talk •  Ev 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Like a dictionary: big,bulky, and aesthetically unattractive—yet sometimes it'll be just what you need. Unschool 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep or possible split. I see no good reason to delete it completely.--Jusjih 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert. As per nom, "Prominent" is very subjective. The template itself is bigger than some of the articles it contains. and would be much more useful and less obstructive if turned into a Category. However, some it's current divisions clearly indicate influences from the ROtK and DW game series, such as Zhang He being listed as a "Wei General", the inclusion of Diaochan and the arbitrary sorting into "Generals" and "Advisors"; it should be cleaned up to gain more historical value, as opposed to be centered on the games/novel. Paolobueno 19:02, 2 August 2007 (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:S-fic

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 01:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted in the Manual of Style, succession boxes should be avoided as they excessively emphasize in-universe relationships, when we're supposed to write about them in an out-of-universe manner. — EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted in the Manual of Style, succession boxes should be avoided as they excessively emphasize in-universe relationships, when we're supposed to write about them in an out-of-universe manner. — EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there was no interim DADA teacher. For crying out loud, between the first and second books there was nothing but the summer holidays. Waltham, The Duke of 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The entire reason for the creation of this template is to end the ambiguity between in and out of universe references in succession boxes. It is undeniable that pages concerning fictional things are referred to in an in-universe and out-of-universe context.  This template makes it known that the successive references are in-universe.  See WT:WAF discussion and count the votes on the succession box discussion.  The motion PASSSED to allow succession boxes in fictional pages 25 to 8.  That is reason enough to allow for these.  Are you seriously considering removing succession boxes from all the kings of Gondor and Arnor, a very obvious and well established succession?  This policy needs to be removed! – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am, actually. My opinion of succession boxes has nothing to do with the whole "the succession path can change or is unknown". It has everything to do with the fact that we're a real-world encyclopedia. In-universe relationships like that should remain on in-universe wikis (for Star Wars, Wookieepedia; for Harry Potter, the Harry Potter Wiki; etc, etc), not here. The fact that Dooku followed Maul and was in turn followed by Vader doesn't matter to the real world. The fact that Bill Clinton followed George H. W. Bush and was followed by George W. Bush does. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you have mixed real world and fictional universes, EVula. It is one thing to have an article discussing a film or novel and it is a completely different thing to discuss a fictional character. I mean, what relations are you going to describe in a fictional character's article? There are no real relations, the fictional ones are those that matter. And since Wikipedia does write about fiction, it is supposed to do a good job of it and not just mention fiction in passing. Waltham, The Duke of 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As an aside, I was searching on the Harry Potter pages for the who the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher was before Dolores Umbridge and it took me forever to find her successor. Man, a succession box on that page would sure be nice.—Whaleyland
 * Hogwarts subjects. I was able to find that rather easily by searching for "Defense Against the Dark Arts". EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm plenty familiar with fiction-based articles (six of my top ten edited mainspace pages are Star Wars or Mortal Kombat characters). However, if the line of succession is actually relevant to the character, than it should be mentioned in the body of the article (or perhaps a line in the infobox). To use my previous example again, the fact that Palpatine picked Dooku to replace Darth Maul is entirely irrelevant to the article about Darth Maul himself (which is probably why Dooku isn't mentioned anywhere on the page). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But that is exactly what you don't see! It is relevant to the article in that there are always two Sith lords and if Maul died, who followed him?  That information should be conveyed somewhere on the page to show that although Maul died, a successor did come after him.  That is like saying it is irrelevant to mention George I of Great Britain on Anne of Great Britain's page.  He came after her and the template shows that there was a succession after she died.  And regarding the "DDA" teachers, I know the information is on Wikipedia, but I don't want to have to do a search when the information should be on the page listed clearly. – Whale  y  land  (  Talk  •  Contributions  ) 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The solution to both problems is to mention it in the article, not add another template. "After Maul's death, Darth Sidious took Darth Tyranus to be his apprentice, fulfilling the Sith Rule of Two" is much better than a succession box. A similar blurb could be done for the DDA example (though I'm not as familiar with the Potter series, so I'm not going to bother making up an example). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with EVula. Unfortunately, he left nothing to add, therefore delete. —AldeBaer 09:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - in addition to what EVula wrote, succession boxes in fictional universes also have the annoying tendency to imply continuity where there isn't any. Maybe Hogwarts had an interim dark arts teacher between the fellow in the first and second books. At the very least, it is a maintenance pain to maintain. Additionally, as the MOS states, plopping a name in the succession box may imply notability where none exists. Darth Vader may be a notable real-world Dark Lord of the Sith, but the vast majority of characters who've held that title really don't warrant their own article, or even a blurb on a list page (weirdly, I just discovered Carnor Jax on two Star Wars List of... pages). But, for a succession box to "work", one would need such an article. A better solution is an infobox that lists all the folks who've held such a title. After some wrangling over this topic with Star Trek captain succession boxes, I put together Template:Enterprise captains, which fits the bill pretty well. Give that a shot for those Gondorian kings. --EEMeltonIV 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Enterprise captains is a fine example of how to best handle this for specific items; like you said, the Gondorian kings would work. However, once it becomes rather large (like a list of Sith Lords), it's best to just rely on List articles. Just a comment. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Userboxes are not any better than succession boxes in that in order for an item to be listed in them it has to have its own article (or article section). In addition, many readers are discouraged by large infoboxes. Besides, succession boxes have further benefits like term dates and distinguishing headers. If they are used correctly, and where there is continuity and notability (and, believe me, there is in many occasions), then I cannot understand why we should not use this tool that so much helps both navigation and article organisation.
 * Weak keep useful as a general tool (and having just reread Rowling's first book, I can add that it is not a counterexample where succession is not clear.) I agree that an infobox will often be a better solution; for the same reason it's not always an adequate tool for RW successions, even if there is an article on the office as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Succession boxes are useful tools in well-written and internally consistent universes for the same reason they are useful in real-world articles. Notability criteria will, of course, be maintained, so I do not believe there are any complications that do not already exist in real-world articles; on the contrary, most (again, well-written, which are the ones succession boxes are intended for anyway) fictional universes are often more stable than real history. I mean, Tolkien is not going to change anything in the Lord of the Rings series, now, is he? Waltham, The Duke of 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the issue here isn't whether or not the path of succession is fully defined (this is a wiki, after all; if there was a change, we could just change it). The issue is that it is giving undue weight to in-universe relationships, when the purpose of Wikipedia is to write about fictional topics in an out-of-universe perspective. I suggest reading Manual of Style (writing about fiction). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the point the Manual of Style is trying to make. However, I disagree that using succession boxes falls under the category of "giving undue weight to in-universe perspective", and this is why I oppose the ban on the usage of succession boxes in this context. Succession boxes help show the relations between certain characters and illustrate the continuity of a fictional universe in a succinct and encyclopaedic manner, giving few but important information in a relatively small box; the information given not only helps the reader understand several aspects of the fictional universe without forcing a too in-universe perspective upon them, but it also helps the editors organise the whole category of articles better (and even give the reader a more organised view of the article structre (especially the less experienced ones) about the specific topic). Furthermore, succession boxes are phrased in such a manner that no in-universe perspective is necessarily implied, and if correctly managed they can only show the most important chains, both limiting the size and number of succession boxes and permitting the existence of none but the most important and serious (and certainly not the "funcrufty") ones. Waltham, The Duke of 19:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep In-universe relationships are the confusing ones, and much better a template like this than an attempt to do the same thing less clearly at and greater length in the text. DGG (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An in-universe succession box can help with interpreting the work in which the character appears. —Scott5114↗ 10:45, 30 July 2007 (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.