Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 20



Template:Infobox military tactic

 * 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) 01:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlike many military topics, articles on military tactics do not lend themselves well to being summarized in an infobox; a particular tactic does not generally have statistics or similar data points applicable to it, and the classification of tactics is too convoluted and subjective to be easily represented in infobox format. An extended discussion about potential uses for this template was held by MILHIST in January, but the general consensus was that there was little benefit in having an infobox of this sort for the articles in question. Since that time, the infobox has not been modified, and is currently used on only five articles. Given the apparent lack of interest in either improving the template or deploying it to articles, I think that it can be safely deleted. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, any information can be put in the article or in a table in the article. Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with nominator. --Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, Very difficult to summarize anything that isn't already obvious in an infobox for a topic that large. Replace with Template:infobox general. Marcus   Qwertyus   17:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete An infobox made for information that should be written in prose.Curb Chain (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 May 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 theatre

 * 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 no merge. JPG-GR (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Infobox theatre
 * Infobox building

Propose merging Template:Infobox theatre with Template:Infobox building.

Most, if not all, of the parameters overlap and a theater is a type of building. This would eliminate the need to embed Infobox theatre so that the whole list of building parameters can be displayed. This is a follow on to the two below and it makes sense to do these all at the same time. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge Providing though that all infobox building parameters are updated to pushpin map and DMS coordinates first.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge A theatre is fundamentally a different thing than just a building. There are also sylvan theaters. How would it look to describe, for example, the National Sylvan Theater or the Forest Theater in an infobox that is designed for buildings? That many parameters of theaters and buildings overlap does not let it appear awkward to have different infoboxes on these both issues. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference. See National Sylvan Theater, looks perfectly fine. Trust me on this there are extremely few parameters which are unique to infobox theatre and can easily be added to infobox building. In fact I spot just one, production.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Template:Infobox building is very comprehensive, while the Template:Infobox theatre is much simpler. One would create much unneccessary difficulty for many editors, should one urge them to use the complicated building template for articles on theaters.


 * Moreover, I guess a theater can even move, can`t it? In such cases, it would nearly appear mad to use a building infobox-template. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the word building describes only a part of the National Sylvan Theater. Grounds would probably be the correct English term for the thing as a physical phenomenon, according to my dictionary. The infobox You have inserted, there, really looks well, for the reader, but for editors...?! Even though the templates on buildings and on theaters may be widely exchangeable, it could be good still to have the theater template for the National Sylvan Theater and similar cases. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess You support the merge namely to enable an easier inclusion of topics like the following, from the building template:


 * height             =
 * diameter           =
 * antenna_spire      =
 * roof               =
 * top_floor          =
 * other_dimensions   =
 * floor_count        =
 * floor_area         =
 * seating_type       =
 * seating_capacity   =
 * elevator_count     =
 * main_contractor    =
 * architect          =
 * architecture_firm  =
 * structural_engineer =
 * services_engineer  =
 * civil_engineer     =
 * other_designers    =


 * But just regarding these topics, I would say it could be good not to have them in a template used to describe theaters. It could be perceived as quite indecent by many people devoted to theater as an art — to the stagings, the actors, and so on — to be told in such an infobox, i.e. at the very top of the article, about these items. This could distract their attention from things which are, more or less, holy for them, in a quite rough manner. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this. Theater and Building templates should be as different/similar as, say, templates for Film and Movie house (should anyone risk to create the latter). -- Evermore2 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Exs.: Moscow's Mayakovsky Theater. Built in 1886. Opened in 1920. Different theaters were based in this building throughout its history. Taganka Theater is based in a building called Art Nouveau which has a history of its own. -- Evermore2 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge A theater, often, is a space inside a building. The Kennedy Center, Lincoln Center, and New Jersey Performing Arts Center are buildings, or complexes which house theaters. If anything the theater info box should be expanded to reflect this with addtional parameters for number of stages, stage square footage, number of sections (orchestra/loge, balcony), rehearsal spaces, current use (now a church, for example) in addition to other specifics. Seating capacity, which must be included in a theater infobox, would be rather strange to include in building infobox, wouldn't it? Djflem (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge per compelling arguments above against merger. --Elekhh (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merge.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge per Djflem.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, as per the combined arguments of Hans Dunkelberg and Djflem. --  Zanimum (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge Strong arguments from Djflem. The point about theatres often being distinct spaces within other buildings is particularly convincing.  Certainly within London alone there is an extremely strong 'pub theatre' scene, with scores of venues in rooms above/below pubs that are distinct and independent from the building housing it.  This holds true around the UK and extends to many other types of host buildings aside from pubs. --Onthemat (talk) 13:34, 5 June 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 hotel

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)



Merge with Template:Infobox building. However there a number of considerations I think which should be met before a merger. That pushpin map and DMS is standardised across all infobox buildings rather than "map type", a logo parameter, rooms, suites, restaurants, bars, manager (not landlord) etc are added to infobox building from infobox hotel, that a new parameter option is made for AAA/AA diamond and star hotels which would feature stars like File:US-O10 insignia.svg in the infobox so it can be rated according to their status on the hotel standards. Maybe the option if you type 4 or four it will display the stars in the infobox automatically. Finally I am very fond of the maroon and gold colour scheme which I think is very suitable for hotels. I would like the option building type=hotel which places it in this current colour scheme. Same for casinos in presenting it in gold or if easier present both hotels and casinos in maroon and gold...♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge, since I have already suggested this on the talk page for Infobox building. Some details in merging the parameters may need to be worked out on the talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge, but without the gratuitous colouring per wp:deviations. I am visually impaired and find this colour scheme extremely hard to read. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not (particularly) visually impaired and I find it hard to read. Those particular shades have very little contrast between them; I agree they are unsuited to use here.  Powers T 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure of the benefits (the nomination does not explain this): infobox building already has a kilometre/mile long list of parameters, and as hotels are quite distinct from other buildings given their use, hotel specific parameters (number_of_rooms, number_of_suites, stars) will only make the infobox less user friendly and complicated to use. --Elekhh (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose i am opposing all three purely because the addition of all the new parameters to the "Building" infobox will make the template so unweildy that it will be incredibly difficult for a non-veteran editor to many any sense of it.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How many parameters would need to be added? I think hotel only needs needs two, about the same for a casino.  The one for casinos also overlaps with the one for hotel.  There is a ton of duplication in all three.  Many buildings today are multipurpose.  So maybe the solution is to move all of the general building parameters into infobox building and then embed infoboxes like infobox theater, infobox hotel, infobox casino, infobox bowling center and infobox convention center for the facility specific details.  Right now, we use infobox casino to describe a building that can include, a casino, one or more hotels, a convention center and more.  We should avoid duplication, and good documentation should address usability.  As far as unwieldy, that may apply to the code, but the actual use of the template is straight forward. This reply also covers all three of these same replies above. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:08, 5 June 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:DamascusGates

 * 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 Redirect to Old City (Damascus). — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused. Superseded by Old City (Damascus), which is in use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 20 May 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:DNB AA


The DNB citation template, Cite DNB, does not use, or mandate the use of, these templates. Most (694) are unused, and the others appear to have few transclusions. They contain unneeded verbosity (the initials of the contributor are hardly needed in each article), and are not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and all other templates in the category Category:Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates (as there are 731 of them, they have not been tagged with tfd for reasons of practicality)
 * Well if you want to remove the "signing as" part feel free. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Most of these templates (at least the ones I've checked so far) are transcluded only on List of contributors to the Dictionary of National Biography. Is there any reason these transclusions can't be subst'ed, thereby eliminating the need for the templates?  This would also have the benefit of making the List article editable, which it effectively isn't now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if one of these is found to require fixing, then the change will have to be made in n places. This applies particularly to links and redlinks.  The templates will be used more, as time goes by. Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Relisted at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 9 and again and again until the required delete is obtained. Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

Template:Institute

 * 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) 01:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template with unclear purpose. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to template:infobox institute. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 20 May 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:International cricket in 2003

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)



Redundant to Category:International cricket competitions in 2003. Unused. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As the creator, it was an attempt to bring some consistency to the cricket project - we have these templates for the last few years. 03  md  14:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see any progress nor discussion on the project/talk page: so delete? mabdul 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Categories and templates can exist together and the template contain date information and red links too, which couldn't be represented in category. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  00:39, 4 June 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:Intense Football League team

 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Superseded by USFootball team. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 20 May 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:Disco entry
<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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It was used on one page to make a table. It's been substed. The related disco foot should be deleted along with it. The latter was used to end the said table (the template call took up more characters than it added). J IM ptalk·cont 06:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete' Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 20 May 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 Dragon Prince character
<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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned template. Appears that the majority of the articles related to the topic which this is infobox is for were redirected during the winter. Izno (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, can be replaced by template:infobox character if needed. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Orphaned and, if the articles do ever come back, easily replaceable by Infobox character. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 May 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.