Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 26



Template:Japan Railway Line

 * 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 replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Japan Railway Line
 * Railway Route Taiwan
 * Railway Route China

this is an unnecessary wrapper for template:navbox, due to the recent creation of rail navbox titlestyle. an example of the redundancy is demonstrated by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASendai_Subway_Nanboku_Line&diff=514720256&oldid=490955097 this edit]. in other words, you just change body to list1 and move the color to titlestyle. note that this new could possibly be applied more broadly, since it adds color coding to the navbox, without color contrast issues in conflict with wp:accessibility. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 26 September 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 comics nationality

 * 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. Over half of the discussion was entirely off topic, but removing that, there was really no consensus concerning the utility of the infobox. Feel free to renominate it if you still think it should be deleted, and your concerns cannot be addressed by making changes to the infobox.Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox comics nationality

Contains almost nothing but OR; and does not summarise articles' key information, as infoboxes are intended to do. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Please take a look at the template's use at Canadian comics. Is there anything in it that is not objective and verifiable from the content of the article? Would throwing inline cites into the template satisfy you? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC) I can certainly back up a lot of these things. I have multiple reliable sources claiming Cerebus to be the most significant Canadian comic book, or Drawn and Quarterly the most significant Canadian comics publisher, or Michel Rabagliati being the best-selling Québécois cartoonist. I could drop those right into the article, and then there would be no need for inline cites in the infobox, and you'd have no ground to stand on with this "parameters call for subjective opinion not objective facts" nonsense. In fact, the D&Q and Rabagliati ones are already cited. The "Earliest publications" and "Languages" fields are cited in the article. Cold, hard facts. I hope you're not just one of these disinfobox people trying to make a point. This would be one of the more obnoxious ways to do it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Of course, the only reason I used was to show that there was a consensus that this the sort of cherry-picked list is considered okay enough that articles that use them have passed FA, so your calling them OR is far, far from either obvious or consensus. Please don't tell me that went over your head. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC) I've told you exactly why I used the icon. You've chosen to assume bad faith and call me a liar. You've now gone two replies ignoring the actual points I made while continuing to make denigrating comments directed at me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This could use a bit of clarity. Could the nominator please point out which aspects of the template they fond to be OR rather and "almost nothing but"? Or what they feel wouldn't fall under that? J Greb (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2012‎ (UTC)
 * On British comics, for example, the "Earliest publications" date may be a verifiable fact (though no reference supporting it seems to be given in the body of the article), and the language entry isn't OR, it's just wrong. Everything else there is uncited and subjective, and thus OR. I grant you, though that there isn't much OR in the instance on European comics. (Do feel free to respond by showing an instance of the infobox whose contents are objective and verifiable.) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the editors crammed OR into the template, how on earth is that the template's fault? You've also picked an article which itself is woefully lacking in citations.
 * It's the template's fault if all or most of its parameters call for subjective opinion not objective facts. The situation in the Canadian infobox is no different to the British example. Did Canada really only ever have five comic publishers and five comic creators? If there were more, then the selection in the infobox is uncited and subjective, and thus OR. and no, citations should not appear in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the infobox implies there were no more than five publishers or creators, any more than William Gibson's infobox implies everything but Neuromancer was insignificant or Rachel Carson's only decent works were The Sea Around Us, The Edge of the Sea and Silent Spring. Or is all that OR, too?  How many infoboxes are you going to attack?
 * Of all the ad hominem personal attacks made against me in nearly ten years on Wikipedia trying to paint me as "just one of these disinfobox people" is quite possibly the most laughable. *slow applause* (and please stop dicking with the list markup of this talk page). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no ad hominem, and you are the one who keeps "dicking with" the formatting—I reverted what you did to my post. Can you please give me back the formatting I gave to my own posts?  And could you please get back on topic?  If you really want to get rid of the infobox, it's up to you to refute the points that have been made, not brag about your "ten years on Wikipedia" and talk condescendingly to people.  A "guy on the internet" is not going to make me cry and go away, so the only way you'll win your argument is by getting back on topic.
 * Yes, there was ad hominem; your attempt to falsely portray me as "just one of these disinfobox people" was exactly that. There's a difference between your dicking about with formatting and my fixing it to use the proper HTML markup per our MoS. And I wasn't "bragging" about anything. And yes, I understood why you used that decoration: an appeal to false authority.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "my fixing it to use the proper HTML markup per our MoS"---Really? As per the MoS: "The simplest markup is often the easiest to edit, the most comprehensible, and the most predictable...Use HTML and CSS markup sparingly".
 * Look! I've struck out the comments that you've chosen to interpret as ad hominems.  Could you now choose to assume good faith and engage with my actual arguments? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Really. I didn't use any HTML in the edit window, which is what the part of the MoS you cite refers to; I fixed your broken formatting so that the page is rendered using the proper HTML in the browser, as our MoS recommends. I have not called you a liar. You said that you used the FA bauble "to show that there was a consensus that this the sort of cherry-picked list is considered okay enough..."; I have not disputed that that was the case; I merely pointed out that that was an appeal to false authority. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC) tags come from? I sure didn't put them there.
 * "I didn't use any HTML in the edit window"—so:
 * where did those
 * where in the MoS have I broken the rules? I notice that my style of formatting is being used elsewhere on this very page, and the way I format sure doesn't break in my browser.  Woud you care to explain just exacly how it does?  Further, your last "dicking" broke the formatting on one of my posts, so that now it renders almost entirely in italics.  Your "dicking" isn't fixing anything.
 * "I merely pointed out that that was an appeal to false authority"—I did no more than point out that something had passed through many eyes, and achieved consensus to get to FA. You're actually saying that pointing out such consensus is "an appeal to authority"?  That's a hop, skip and a jump from saying that pointing out the MoS was an "appeal to authority".
 * How about you just respond to the points I raised, rather than wasting everybody's time with these imaginary meta-argments you have? Nobody else cares about your favourite style of formatting, and nobody else cares about your armchair-psychological suspicions about my motives for using a couple of icons.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not "saying that pointing out such consensus is "an appeal to authority". I said that that (local) consensus was a false authority for you to appeal to in your argument; and nowhere did I speculate as your motivation for doing so. Nor am I arguing for my "favourite style of formatting"; I'm fixing the underlying markup to emit the proper HTML, by using the proper wiki-markup (and  is wiki-markup), not least because I'm clueful enough to think beyond the circumstances of my own browser. Fortunately, other people do care about this, too.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC) s just clutter up the source, when the original was formatted neatly into paragraphs that were much easier for an editor to navigate.
 * I've been indenting my comments according to Indentation and Help:Using talk pages, as specifically recommended at WP:TOPPOST. I created a page to test the differences between the different styles.  The results were all compliant standard HTML 4.01, and supposedly all major browsers conform to these standards.
 * You have yet to show where my style of formatting is inconsistent with the MoS.
 * You have yet to show how it breaks in any browser (even theoretical ones).
 * If you are "not "saying that pointing out such consensus is "an appeal to authority"", then how could you say that a "(local) consensus was a false authority for [me] to appeal to"? You're contradicting yourself.  Either you're accusing me of appealing to authority or you're not.
 * Whether I appealed to authority or not (and I didn't—I made use of a visual shorthand to show that I wasn't just picking random articles), it makes not one shred of difference. If I said, "The Earth goes around the sun—Copernicus and Galileo said so, and everybody knows that, jackass", I'd be both appealing to authority and throwing ad hominems around, but it would make not one drop of difference to the truth value of the statement.  So far, despite multiple appeals, you have yet to tackle the actual points raised, instead wasting time on all these meta-questions.  This is not the place for this kind of thing.
 * You seem very fond of making bald statements without having the intention of backing them up in any concrete way. You also seem intent on avoiding tackling the actual to-the-point points I made.  Supposedly we're here at Templates for discussion to discuss the templates.  When would you like to start doing that?  This is not the first time I've asked you to get back on topic.  The centrifugal force of going around in circles like this is making the blood vessels in my eyes pop.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Subsection 1

 * This is largely subjective and isn't really an appropriate topic for a general infobox. Contrary to the assertion that keeping trivia or OR out of infoboxes is an editorial matter, we've a fairly firm consensus not to include inappropriate fields in infoboxes because it inevitably encourages people to make use of it if at all possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to contradict the claim that there's a "fairly firm consensus", but it's certainly news to me. I'm editing in good faith, and I definitely read up on all the policy and policy-like material I can get out there.  Could you please point me somewhere that gives a good explanation about why and how this "consensus" came into being?  I honestly don't see there being that big a difference between this and the "notable works" fields for authors, so I'd like to know just exactly where this line is drawn.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Notable works are the entire reason that we have an article on a given author. I suspect that the reason we have per-country articles on comics is more because they exist. I'm not sure I can point you at a particular place where the general matter of what is and is not appropriate in an infobox has been discussed, as it's a somewhat long-running issue (we've had infoboxes in their current format for over half a decade now, and their development has very much been a bottom-up agglomeration of best practices as and when they come up). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I suspect that the reason we have per-country articles on comics is more because they exist.": The Canadian comics article existed long before the infobox came along (although you'll have to see Canadian comics/version 1 for the proof of that). The article was created in January 2006, and didn't get an infobox until 2011).  There are multiple full-length books dedicated to the subject in English and French.  Its notability is beyond question.
 * I hope you'll understand where I'm coming from when I ask to be pointed somewhere that explains this "consensus". Not that I'm accusing you of such a thing, but I've had "disinfobox" people (as an example) who've tried derailing discussions in the past by linking to the Disinfoboxes as if it were consensus.  After all, there's a consensus between the disinfobox people on it, isn't there?  Anyways, it's just far too easy for someone, even in good faith, to claim that something is the consensus.  They may even have particiated in a discussion where it appeared to them that a consensus has been reached—maybe a consensus really was reached amongst the participants, but nobody else even knew about it.  I hope you'll understand that, without assuming bad faith, I can't just be expected to accept "Oh, we've got a consensus on that" at face value.
 * "Notable works are the entire reason that we have an article on a given author"—Two things:
 * This doesn't explain why some articles use the "Notable works" parameter and others don't.
 * This assumes that there is some kind of canon of works by a given author. Well, there are canons of works in different countries as well.  I have citations that are either already in the Canadian comics article to back up certain people, works and publishers as being canonical, or could be added easily.  As far as I can tell, the fields in the Infobox comics nationality template serve the exact same purpose: to give readers a quick overview of the contents of the article before they dig in.
 * Anyways, if the issue is important enough to result in terminating the infoboxes, then the issue is important enough to be written up somewhere. If nothing else, then we would have a convenient place to point to so we don't have to listen to the obnoxious gobblings of turkeys. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 28 September 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 UK athletics club

 * 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 replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox UK athletics club

Single use. Redundant to Infobox athletics club. Unedited since 2010. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 26 September 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.

All-NBA and NBL Teams

 * 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) 04:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1946–47 All-BAA Team
 * 1947–48 All-BAA Team
 * 1948–49 All-BAA Team
 * 1949–50 All-NBA Team
 * 1950–51 All-NBA Team
 * 1951–52 All-NBA Team
 * 1952–53 All-NBA Team
 * 1953–54 All-NBA Team
 * 1954–55 All-NBA Team
 * 1955–56 All-NBA Team
 * 1956–57 All-NBA Team
 * 1957–58 All-NBA Team
 * 1958–59 All-NBA Team
 * 1959–60 All-NBA Team
 * 1960–61 All-NBA Team
 * 1961–62 All-NBA Team
 * 1962–63 All-NBA Team
 * 1963–64 All-NBA Team
 * 1964–65 All-NBA Team
 * 1965–66 All-NBA Team
 * 1966–67 All-NBA Team
 * 1967–68 All-NBA Team
 * 1968–69 All-NBA Team
 * 1969–70 All-NBA Team
 * 1970–71 All-NBA Team
 * 1971–72 All-NBA Team
 * 1972–73 All-NBA Team
 * 1973–74 All-NBA Team
 * 1974–75 All-NBA Team
 * 1975–76 All-NBA Team
 * 1976–77 All-NBA Team
 * 1977–78 All-NBA Team
 * 1978–79 All-NBA Team
 * 1979–80 All-NBA Team
 * 1980–81 All-NBA Team
 * 1981–82 All-NBA Team
 * 1982–83 All-NBA Team
 * 1983–84 All-NBA Team
 * 1984–85 All-NBA Team
 * 1985–86 All-NBA Team
 * 1986–87 All-NBA Team
 * 1987–88 All-NBA Team
 * 1988–89 All-NBA Team
 * 1989–90 All-NBA Team
 * 1990–91 All-NBA Team
 * 1991–92 All-NBA Team
 * 1992–93 All-NBA Team
 * 1993–94 All-NBA Team
 * 1994–95 All-NBA Team
 * 1995–96 All-NBA Team
 * 1996–97 All-NBA Team
 * 1997–98 All-NBA Team
 * 1998–99 All-NBA Team
 * 1999–2000 All-NBA Team
 * 2000–01 All-NBA Team
 * 2001–02 All-NBA Team
 * 2002–03 All-NBA Team
 * 2003–04 All-NBA Team
 * 2004–05 All-NBA Team
 * 2005–06 All-NBA Team
 * 2006–07 All-NBA Team
 * 2007–08 All-NBA Team
 * 2008–09 All-NBA Team
 * 2009–10 All-NBA Team
 * 2010–11 All-NBA Team
 * 2011–12 All-NBA Team
 * 1937–38 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1938–39 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1939–40 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1940–41 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1941–42 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1942–43 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1943–44 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1944–45 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1945–46 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1946–47 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1947–48 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team
 * 1948–49 All-National Basketball League (United States) Team


 * Delete all. No individual articles exist for these awards, which is a criterion of navboxes. Furthermore, this is information much better served in the honors/awards section in infoboxes. These are also junking up articles with WP:CLUTTER and they may even border on WP:CRUFT. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all Fails WP:NAVBOX guideline, including "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent", and "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." While there is an All-NBA team article, it doesn't necessitate navboxes for individual years. As many players earn the honor multiple times, the excessive navboxes at Bill_Russell are be a poster child for the monstrosity created by these navboxes.  While other navboxes might exist where the entries don't refer to each other, WP:OTHERSTUFF should not apply here as some awards may be subjectively more notable than this honor, which currently has 15 annual honorees (3 teams of 5 players each).—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Per above. We had a long discussion at WP:NBA about this and consensus was the project did not support them. Rikster2 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion Rikster2 referred to is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all per consensus at WP:NBA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all This just isn't the sort of thing a navbox is good for. The All-NBA team article should be sufficient by itself. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all as navbox cruft and per the consensus at the wiki project. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 27 September 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:Virgin Records

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  05:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Virgin Records

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Is it going to list every executive, every act, every album, every song from Virgin Records with an article? I'm sure it's not limited to Pretty Poison, at least according to Category:Virgin Records artists. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - In the interest of WP:ANOEP, I plan to put the albums, songs and possibly members of musical ensembles that do not have their own navbox. Artists that have additional articles get a group, and artists that do not can all be lumped into the last group.  I plan to add to it as time goes on.  I welcome any other ideas, including "succession templates".--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete adding every single Virgin Records artist would make the template far too large and unwieldy, even if it were split into templates like Template:Simon Property Group. Some Virgin artists only recorded one album, or didn't stay with the label long enough to put any albums out (e.g. River Road (band) — should they be on there too? It seems that the intended purpose would be redundant to Category:Virgin Records artists and Category:Virgin Records albums. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jax 0677 is going the right way if he wants someone to propose a formal ban on his creating templates. ANOEP is a fringe opinion at best. This plainly has serious scope issues which make it unrepresentative in its current state and totally unwieldy in some theoretical completed state. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Refactor as a template with links about the corporation, and do not include any musical groups/albums/songs whatsoever. If that doesn't happen, delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There aren't enough relevant articles on Virgin Records-related stuff, are there? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * delete, better served by a category. simply being on the same label isn't close enough of an association.  no objection if someone wants to recreate this as something other than a way to link the artists (e.g., linking staff, sublabels, etc.), but it does not look like that is possible here. Frietjes (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The prime direction is that each artist that has between 1-4 associated links (songs, artists or album) can have a group line item (i.e. like Template:Fractured Transmitter Recording Company). A template allows for quicker navigation between articles than does a list or category.  Artists that have zero associated links can be lumped into the last group.  Artists with more than 4 associated links can have their own navbox.  I doubt that something like this would generate thousands of articles within the navbox, as there are likely not too many artists and ensembles with 1-4 links.  In short, too small, the artist goes into the last category.  Too big, it gets split off.  The template can be changed over into one with executive officers and subsidiaries, such as Template:Warner Music Group.  The scope of the templates can be readjusted as the organization grows, just like some artists and ensembles have templates for their songs and albums.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - There are several additional potential candidates for Template:Virgin Records: --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 
 * 1) Richard Branson
 * 2) Capitol Music Group
 * 3) Charisma Records
 * 4) Front Line Records
 * 5) Nik Powell
 * 6) Virgin Group
 * 7) Virgin Records artists
 * 8) Virgin Schallplatten
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 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:Etox
<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; deleted as G2 by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Etox

blank template. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete blank/test -- 70.24.249.80 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 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:Eugenia Silva Magazine Covers
<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) 23:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eugenia Silva Magazine Covers

no longer needed now that the text has been merged as a sidebar in the article. Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 26 September 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 DreddCJ
<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 replacement. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox DreddCJ

Fork of infobox comics character to add additional in-universe material. This isn't necessary or appropriate. Minimal use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate as to what you mean by not necessary or appropriate -- is there some policy against this? Infobox comics character also contains in-universe parameters (which have been removed from Infobox DreddCJ so the number of such parameters has not actually increased), and these ones are more relevant. As for "minimal use," please direct us to the policy setting the minimum number of uses a template needs to have before it is acceptable to use it on Wikipedia. Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WAF-INFO gives an overview. Elevating fictional information, which is usually trivial in comparison to a notable subject's real-world impact, to a position of importance within an infobox is inappropriate. The general fictional character infobox provides for a small amount of such detail to be included, but over 50% of the fields in this infobox are in-universe. Moreover, most of them pertain to fictional succession. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well 50% is better than the 64% (7 out of 11) of parameters in Infobox comics character which are in-universe, so Infobox DreddCJ is an improvement on the parent template, and consequently ought to have your support. Richard75 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A cute rhetorical trick, but not one which is particular appropriate for a serious discussion. The generic template has its own problems, but its listed in-universe characteristics are broadly suitable to a very large range of articles and thus have significant utility for comparison (for instance, what "team" a character is on is of significant real-world import within the extremely notable superhero genre as it directly affects which franchises a given character appears in). The ones in this template are by and large mundane plot elements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a serious point. I get what you mean about "team affiliations," "partnerships" and "supporting character of," — but "alter ego," "species," "place of origin," "aliases" and "abilities?" How are these more significant in the real world than the in-universe parameters of DreddCJ? With respect, I think you are seeking to apply a double standard here. Richard75 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, the parent infobox has its own problems, but I'd rather have one problematic infobox to tackle than two. The vast majority of previously-independent character infoboxes have been successfully merged to it already, and there's little to suggest that an exception is warranted here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This process does not work by simply counting the number of votes on each side. Richard75 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed not; hence "per nom". Granny can already suck eggs. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Per nom" = "ditto" or "what he said." It's not actually an argument. It's a vote. Richard75 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to apologise for agreeing with Chris. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 26 September 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:Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 seasons
<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) 03:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 seasons

Redundant template of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 which has exact same content but with more detail. No need for both. TonyStarks (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 14:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete duplicate of another template, which does the job better. NapHit (talk) 16:20, 9 October 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:Lausanne Metro line M1
<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 consensus to at least merge with Template:Lausanne Metro line M2, but no consensus to delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lausanne Metro line M1

Only one station linked the rest are all red links. No apparent attempt to create those articles. Sw2nd (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Merge with Template:Lausanne Metro line M2 to Template:Lausanne Metro with a switch "line=" to select the line. (if absent, it lists all lines, and can be used at Lausanne Metro) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. No navigation in this Navbox. Unchanged and still mostly red links. A merge would not improve the situation. Sw2nd (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * merge for now, but reconsider the merged template in the future if the number of red links does not change. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 10 October 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:Lausanne Metro line M2
<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 consensus to at least merge with Template:Lausanne Metro line M1, but no consensus to delete Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 03:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lausanne Metro line M2

Only two stations linked the rest are all red links. No apparent attempt to create those articles. Sw2nd (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch this space. I have just been working on a translation of Transports publics de la région lausannoise, and may well make a start on some of the métro stations soon. While I have had nothing to do with this template, I can see it serving a very useful purpose in the future. Articles on the history, rolling stock and (a few of) the stations are all available right now, perhaps what it really needs is more links adding. Plus, 24 hours between creation and nomination to be deleted? Seems a little harsh to me. This rationale applies to both this and Template:Lausanne Metro line M1. I may propose a renaming to remove the 'M', but that's a totally different matter. --Peeky44 What's on your mind? 19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Merge with Template:Lausanne Metro line M1 to Template:Lausanne Metro with a switch "line=" to select the line. (if absent, it lists all lines, and can be used at Lausanne Metro) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. No navigation in this Navbox. Unchanged and still mostly red links. A merge would not improve the situation. Sw2nd (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * merge for now, but reconsider the merged template in the future if the number of red links does not change. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 10 October 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:Williams-Sonoma
<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 Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Williams-Sonoma

Links only 4 articles. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Note, this appears to link more than 4 articles? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also just added the founder and CEO, per other company templates (like Apple). Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:08, 26 September 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.