Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 22



Template:D&D topics

 * 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 into Template:D&D topics. Consensus assumed based on silence following notification of proposed merger. -- Apo-kalypso (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose that Template:D&D navbox and Template:D&D navigation be merged into Template:D&D topics. Navigation was created 4 November 2008, followed shortly thereafter by Navbox on 21 November 2008. Topics came about almost two years later (5 September 2010), effectively duplicating the function of its predecessors – both of which were duplicates themselves – but it currently appears in far more WP articles than the others: 513 compared to 29 for Navbox and none for Navigation. Aside from the obvious fact that each of these templates contains essentially the same information – not to mention that Topics has become the standard navigational template preferred by WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons – the widespread use of Topics compared to Navbox and Navigation is the primary reason why I am proposing that they be merged into it. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2011 (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 County of China (PRC)

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)



Nothing here exists that cannot be filled in by Template:Infobox settlement, which is used in many other articles anyway. Number of townships is covered by usage of the parameter subdivision_type3, and GDP and licence plates can be filled in by usage of the blank fields. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant', or convert to a shell, calling Infobox settlement Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Infobox settlement is very flexible and I'm in favor of getting rid of all regional/national varieties for a unified look. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:20, 2 August 2011 (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:Martin Lawrence

 * 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 per prior consensus about actor navboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As per consensus for actor navboxes. See MOS:FILM. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per MOS:FILM#Navigation.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or repurpose as a template which just his stand-up comedy and/or comedy albums. I agree with MOS:FILM on this point, if we included these boxes for every actor, it would be a mess at the bottom of each page.  76.199.7.31 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (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:Campaignbox Wars of Beleriand

 * 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 Keep. --RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of a military campaign box to portray fictional events. The notable background to this is a story rather than a war, and it seems likely that the majority of the links will eventually find themselves folded into list of Middle-earth wars and battles anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The fact that each article it links to is a full article unto itself means the template is serving a purpose and being useful. Also, why should it matter whether the war is a fictional one or a historical one? If it's fictional, that may mean it doesn't fall under WP:MILHIST, but that doesn't have to mean that we can't use useful templates - it's just a box of links, that helps users navigate between closely related articles - it doesn't "belong" to anyone; it doesn't belong exclusively to non-fictional historical wars. LordAmeth (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - My reasoning is very similar to LordAmeth above. This is a form of navbox providing a link to a set of related and complete articles. They are all stand-alone articles at the moment and as such the template is serving a useful purpose. Campaign is used for military campaigns, fictional or otherwise. That it is fictional has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. I don't see any reason to delete nor a compelling rationale based in policy from the nominator. Woody (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles are all purely in-universe (with one or two exceptions such as Battle of the Hornburg), and it appears that the only reason that most of them have standalone articles is that nobody's taken the time to question their individual notability. Rolling all of the sub-articles into their respective "war" articles (Battles of Beleriand and War of the Ring respectively) would help mitigate that, and would obviate the need for these navboxes. It might have been less effort to do that first, but I know how the community looks down on folk orphaning templates before TfDs. If it's agreed that the navboxes wouldn't been needed with the battles merged then that seems like the best way forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The quality of the articles is irrelevant to this discussion. If the articles need work on them then do some work on them. Don't nominate a template for deletion simply because the articles inside it aren't to your satisfaction. If everyone did that then we wouldn't have too many templates left. If you think there are problems with the articles then address them, talk to the editors of the articles and try and get them improved/work out the best way forward for those articles. Until those articles aren't stand-alone articles there is a need for this template. Woody (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because these are simply navigation boxes that help find links to related articles. As to notability and standalone articles, there have been several proposal for the articles in question but the main articles like List of Middle-earth wars and battles or War of the Ring are already very long and detailed (and rightly so) so that is justified to have this content forked out. On another note I'd like to point out that it would've been fair to inform WikiProject Middle-earth of this deletion discussion and also of the previous discussion regarding Infobox Me battle. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment These templates look like navboxes, not infoboxes so this is a different situation from Infobox Me battle.Curb Chain (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (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.