Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 7



Template:Infobox Buffyverse character

 * 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 after suitable replacement Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to Infobox character. Jack Merridew 23:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. Considering it makes uses of what are unassigned lines in Infobox character, excludes a lot of fields typically used, and has a series custom colour it is a nice, neat customisation that is used and makes it easier to use. If it is redundant then all variants are redundant to Infobox. From a reader perspective i quite like the infobox; that is how i found this discussion. I also really do not like the concept of redundancy as it is subjective and has no bounds.  delirious  &  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 02:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only notable additional lines are "powers" and "affiliation", which are in-universe attributes. We generally avoid them in infoboxes these days. As for the custom header colour, black text on navy blue is not a particularly good choice; not only does it have no identifiable link to the Buffy series, but on low-contrast displays it's unreadable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The best example of an out of universe Buffy article is the Cordelia Chase article (if I do say so myself) and 's Wesley Wyndham-Pryce article. In the Cordelia article, I try to keep the infobox neat, down to "Notable powers: precognitive visions." The word notable is operative; it prevents long lists of things like "* Cleansing glow which eases troubled souls. *Levitation (used once in episode such-and-such). *Skilled swordfighter." One of the problems Buffy articles have, even after they're rewritten, is newer users trying to add ==Powers and abilities== sections. Unlike say, X-Men characters, for whom "powers" make up not only a big draw to the character's popularity, but also their original conception, their naming, and their as-much-as-40-years' character development (real-world information), "powers" in Buffy are only relevant by Wikipedia standards where they bring out the show's themes, metaphors, etcetera. As such, the infobox as it currently is provides following information:
 * 1) It says, clearly, what the character's role is in the show. At a glance. For example, the Willow article should (when not made super-comprehensive by a zealous fan) merely list "Powerful magical abilites." Knowing this lets a non-viewer infer "Ah, this character is the deus ex machina character." Or, "Ah! So Buffy does most of the fighting."
 * 2) It helps prevent the awful, ungodly, in-universe "Powers and abilties" sections from springing up. These amount to individual editors making their own semi-academic assumptions based on what they've seen in the show, which only fans care to read, e.g. "Tara also demonstrates telekinesis, which, when she is in physical contact with Willow, is stronger than it would otherwise be (i.e. she and Willow pool their power by concentrating on moving the same object)." This stuff belongs on the (eminently readable) Buffy and Angel Wikia.
 * I hope I've made my case. So please, either keep or replicate the "Powers" field via lbl/data into Infobox character.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, use the custom parameters of Infobox character; that's what they're there for! Axem Titanium (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Templates should strike a balance, being general enough to leverage the re-usability of templates, but not so broadly defined as to be unusable. Infobox character seems to do this nicely, while Infobox Buffyverse character is unnecessarily specific. Even the additional fields mentioned above, if truly desirable for an encyclopedia article, are generic enough to apply to numerous non-Buffyverse characters. So there seems no reason to have a specific template for this one fictional universe. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a big Buffyverse fan but I'm an even bigger Wikipedia fan. The extra parameters included in this infobox seem remarkably useless. Whether or not the characters' powers and affiliation should be noted (either in the generic Infobox character or in the article itself) is irrelevant, the template is redundant. Delete!--– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 04:50, 15 July 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:Occupation Infobox style

 * 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) 16:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unused; rolled into main template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 7 July 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:Country data CHINA

 * 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) 16:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete Completely pointless template, which merely contains the single word "CHINA". Also unused. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete of course. Possibly a mistake, given that the user's other contributions seem to be productive.   —  Soap  —  10:22, 8 July 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:HowtoTalk

 * 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 with no prejudice against adding additional features to Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now largely redundant to the advice given in the vastly more commonplace talkheader, which obviously does a much better job of fitting in with the rest of the common talk templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment this might be useful on talk pages where alot of people unfamiliar with mediawiki all show up because of some announcement somewhere on the internet... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to talkheader as an optional additional textbox, with parameter "howto=yes" activated. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What value does this really provide over "Place new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic", which already exists in talkheader? Where has it been proven that this is needed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It tells people who are unfamiliar with mediawiki notation how to indent their messages. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And we need a message for that? Considering the low transclusion count, it rather seems that people figure this out by themselves on most talk pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the shape of talk pages, alot of people do not figure it out at all. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Talk header should only be used on talk pages that have have issues, so I don't see this as a useful addition. If a template like this is useful, it should be as a user warning. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:05, 10 July 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 Charmed character

 * 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 after suitable replacement Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to infobox character once the in-universe bits are eliminated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "in-universe" bits of an infobox have the function of (in theory) meaning less time is wasted on listing trivia ("Her grandmother's name is...) sections. This is the approach I took when I rewrote Silurian and but the trivial IU 'other names for the species' in the infobox. Ditto Sam Winchester. I agree, the Infobox Charmed Character is redundant now and I vote delete (after all the articles using it have been switched to infobox character). However, some of the fields should be replicated using lbl21, data21, etc.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 14:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are for summaries of important statistics; they're not supposed to be dumping grounds for trivia. Any material in an infobox should be included in the article body already: material should not be held only in the infobox in the first place. Who a fictional character's fictional grandmother is may or may not be important in an article, but it's very unlikely that it needs to be in the infobox regardless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for a case like Charmed, the character's powers are. The model I was working from was the exemplar Jason Voorhees. Specifically, the "Classification: 	Mass murderer[1] / Signature weapon: 	Machete[2]" fields. I agree it should be deleted. Things like relatives are already a fact of the standard infobox template, as much as I hate it. (Note by continued efforts on Laurie Strode to reduce the relatives to just on-screen and important characters.)~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that Jason Voorhees should be using a custom infobox; infobox character has improved significantly since the discussion here, and it might be worth re-evaluating that. It might be worth discussing whether "powers" would be an appropriate addition to infobox character itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Abilities' ('powers' creates odd results, like labeling a technology or a learned skill as a 'power') seems like a reasonable generic field for Infobox character. It is an in-universe property, but for some characters their special abilities are an important, even defining, attribute, and likely discussed out-of-universe in secondary sources. --RL0919 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Similar to what I said about the Buffyverse character box above, this infobox is unnecessarily specific. Infobox character should do, and any important general-use fields can be added there. --RL0919 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 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:Timeline of Bihar
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 after substitution Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Text substitution only used in one article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete Single use template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:16, 10 July 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:Vaughn michael
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 after saving any useful information Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 16:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Template used only on a single article. I would normally suggest 'subst and delete' here, but this template isn't useful even in the article it's on - it doesn't contain any links. It's simply a list of works, none of which have their own articles. This is not what templates are for. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Navbox without links is not useful. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:06, 10 July 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.