Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 13



Template:IMDb biography

 * 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) 01:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As an external link template for biography articles, this is redundant to IMDb name; the link should go to a person's main IMDb profile, not the bio subpage. Otherwise this is being used in some articles for citations, however it is not a citation template and IMDb is not generally regarded as a reliable source. Only used in 24 articles. PC78 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Allowing direct link to the biography section keeps one from needing to search to find information. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the nomination. In what situation would a direct link to the bio page be preferable as an external link, as opposed to using IMDb name? PC78 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. By "direct link" I meant using the template to link to a specific section. However, I have been informed that this function can be done with the "section=" parameter on, so I am changing my vote to delete. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I understood you, I'm just wondering where there would be a genuine need to do this. PC78 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for this template. IMDb name can now handle it with the bio param. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WOSLinker. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have a strong consensus as to whether IMDB should be used for references? I just used this to wrap up an inline citation in Jeff Foxworthy and it seemed to do the job (speaking of which, do we have an IMDB wrapper for "events" like the other inline cite there?), but I've no arguments against getting rid if we really don't want IMDB used inline. Otherwise, I can't see why this can't be kept as a subclass of IMDb name. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we have a strong concensus; most recent discussion was here. But these templates really aren't cut out for citations, they make a poor substitute for cite web. They are really meant to be used in external link sections. PC78 (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I've seen a few type references in a few articles before. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My line of thought is that I'd rather we decided once and for all whether IMDB is to be used for inline references, and if so to update the IMDB templates to subclass cite (or else to prohibit inline use of IMDB). Merely discouraging it by having the templates be deliberately inferior to proper cites helps nobody. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, aside from the question of whether or not we should be citing IMDb in the first place, we shouldn't be using these templates to do it, because they are strictly external link templates. We should use a proper citation template for citations. PC78 (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two are separate issues. It makes little sense to me to link to the same page in two different ways depending on whether it's inline or in the external links section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The two uses are fundamentally different though. This template isn't styled as a citation. Compare allmusic with cite allmusic, for example. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 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 Bond film

 * 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. WOSlinker (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Overly specific fork of Infobox film, which—barring any future Bond films—has no application beyond the current 28 mainspace uses. Infobox film is more than adequate for these articles. PC78 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's argument. Very restricted use of a specialized infobox with mostly redundant parameters. I'm open to discussion about merging some unique parameters (like those for James Bond music) to the main infobox, but for the most part, the parameters are the same. Replacing the specialized infobox with the regular infobox would help with standardization and ease of template upkeep. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Un-needed fork of the standard film infobox, and would fall outside the standardisations of the current infobox.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The only differences between this and the film infobox templates are very negligible, and there shouldn't be such a generic template for a small subset of articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because Template:Infobox film already exists. James Michael 1 (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply no need, as Template:Infobox film is just as good with Bond films as with any other movies. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. is sufficient. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 15 October 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:Divisor classes

 * 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 history and redirect Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated, unused. Prior discussions ended with "not now" so I am nominating again a few months down the road. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No need to keep this indefinitely. PC78 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Nearly unused template anyway. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, because I don't know why you want to delete it. I created this template, and it was in several articles.  Then someone renamed the template, and changed the name in all the articles.  I don't know why it was renamed, but it was certainly used for years in several articles.  By deleting it, you make that history harder to read.  How does that help?  It would make more sense for this to redirect to the new version.  If you delete it, you are removing access to the history of the new version of the template.  WP policy is to retain that history, yet there are these cases where people remove it.    Randall Bart    Talk   19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Histmerge into Template:Divisor classes navbox, as it seems like a rewrite, so contribution history should be kept. (a redirect would also work) 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a rewrite then a history merge is the appropriate move. The argument that it needs to be kept to preserve historic revisions of articles isn't very strong because this is just a navbox rather than something which would fundamentally affect the presentation of old revisions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:58, 16 October 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.