Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 4



Template:Infobox National Invitation Tournament

 * 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) 02:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox National Invitation Tournament

this is a fork of Template:Infobox NCAA Basketball Tournament, which is being used on about 75 pages. I added a "Type" parameter to the general NCAA box, so this template is now redundant (see the version using generic NCAA box vs. the version using Infobox National Invitation Tournament, and the edit to convert the template in a tournament article). we could, of course, use a more generic name for the merged template (say Template:Infobox college basketball tournament) Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (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 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament

 * 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) 02:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament
 * Infobox College Basketball Invitational Tournament

these are forks of Template:Infobox NCAA Basketball Tournament, which were only being used on four pages each (see Category:CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament and Category:College Basketball Invitational). I added a "Type" parameter to the general NCAA box, so this template is now redundant. I will obviously revert my edits if the decision is to keep this template (very simple change like this). we could, of course, use a more generic name for the merged template (say Template:Infobox college basketball tournament) Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2012 (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 theologian

 * 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 consensus to delete. Closing this as it has been open for far too long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Infobox theologian

Redundant duplicate of infobox person. Its only unique fields are:


 * tradition_movement
 * main_interests
 * notable_ideas

which are redundant to genre and known_for. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete—redundant.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment why not add more fields??--WickerGuy (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per:
 * 1. tags are not synonyms, tag names are for ease of use,
 * 2. harder to maintain immense lists of tags in generalized infoboxen to take care of all possibilities of a "person"
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I struggle to understand what I'd put under "genre" for a theologian. The three specific fields cited all seem appropriate for theologians and are not redundant in the person infobox. For example, the Pope may be "known for" wearing white, riding round in a funny car and living in Rome, but those aren't features of his "ideas" about religion. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This infobox is not used for popes; for whom a separate infobox exists. If you have an example which actually uses this infobox, I'd be happy to advise as to how it could be converted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Genre doesn't seem to be used to describe the ideas related to theology or religion. For examples of why the elimination of the fields above might be problematic see theologian infoboxes for Paul Tillich, Jacobus Arminius, James Haldane, Emanuel Swedenborg, Karl Barth. SBaker43 (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep — Of the three unique fields, "notable ideas" may be replaceable by "known for"; the other two don't seem to have anything obvious. SBaker43 (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's needed and not redundant. "Tradition" is of ultimate importance for a theologian (I should know, being one: as a Roman Catholic (Thomistic) theologian, my entire view is going to be completely different from a Reformed theologian, enough that the notable ideas will not only be different, but come from a completely different set of assumptions). A 300-variable general person infobox is incredibly unwieldy and hard to use. If you get rid of this, Template:Philosopher and similar have to go by the same logic. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 10:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC
 * The philosopher template may indeed have to go; but that's for another day; meanwhile, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Why will a prepared pro-forma copy of Infobox person not suffice? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace by Infobox person I think the arguments of the nominator are satisfying. We need to reduce number of human infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we "need to reduce the number of human infoboxes"? --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For reasons summarise in this FAQ. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with some elements of that essay, including the part that mentions "genre-specific detail". That applies here, as has been demonstrated by the participants. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete & Modify infobox person - Why don't we delete Infobox theologian and add the unique fields that it has to infobox person with a description on how to use the fields? --Pavithran (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong way round. Make the infobox person work for theologians and then we can assess it. Deleting what isn't broken and then trying to fix something else that isn't broken in order to accommodate it is illogical. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It isn't redundant, it's for a separate class of people. It is analogous to saying delete the musician infobox. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox musical artist is very different to Infobox person; the nominated template is redundant to the latter because it is virtually the same, with only three different parameters, which are either replaceable with existing 'person parameters, or which can easily be added to the 'person template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to talk of parameters, but how the boxes are used for separate groups of people. I say keep the theologian infobox and tweak the parameters, the three you speak of are important for theologians but would clutter the already hopelessly long list of parameters on the person infobox.  "genre" does not equal "tradition or movement"  TuckerResearch (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems reasonable. "Notable ideas" is equivalent to "Known for". -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - "Notable Ideas" is not equivalent to "Known For." For example, John Calvin is known for being a 16th century Swiss Reformer. His notable ideas include various types of Church Governance, Decretal Theology, A particular biblical hermeneutic, and many other ideas. Beyond that, it is vital to have a note for what tradition they come from, as both Mormons and Trinitarian Christians use similar language, but mean very different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Magioladitis. --eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Marikafragen (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we vote already? The stupid warning is uglying up all the theologian pages I'm working on.ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2012 (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.