Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 3



Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series

 * 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 do not merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series with Template:Infobox WWE reality competition.
 * Infobox wrestling PPV series
 * Infobox WWE reality competition

Very similar templates. 30 and 2 transclusions respectively. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both I don't know what the nominator is talking about, the two templates couldn't be more visually and functionally different. If anything, I suggest removing from this TfD and have a discussion about deleting . Other than that, I must question whether Andy did any research on the two templates before starting this TfD. 97.106.123.33 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above comment is mine, apparently I was logged out without realizing it.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep both To me it would be like putting movies and tv shows in the same info box, is that done? I am asking because I do not know for sure but I doubt it.  MPJ  -US 22:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Both Both serve a purpose. If anything, rename the reality competition template. Remove the WWE part because it is not the only company to use reality tv.-- Will C  04:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternative proposal. Infobox WWE reality competition is much more similar to Infobox reality talent competition and should be merged into that. Also, as a side note, if im not mistaken, Infobox WWE reality competition is used only twice, WWE Diva Search and WWE NXT (TV series). --Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As proponent, I'm happy with this alternative merge. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 11 August 2015 (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 cometary globule

 * 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 replace with and redirect to infobox nebula. —  Earwig   talk 03:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Single use, redundant to Infobox astro object. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox cometary globule
 * Comment why don't you ever bring these up at the relevant wikiprojects? Your proposed replacement is the wrong template to use, there's a more relevant one. You'd have to know what a cometary globule is to select the correct infobox in the infobox heirarchy. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replace and then Redirect this newly created (Jan 2015) template for one that already exists, replace with infobox nebula which indicates supported type "Bok globule" which is what cometary globules are (its a subtype of Boks) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2015 (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 Internet in country

 * 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. —  Earwig   talk 03:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Unused. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Internet in country
 * Delete per nom. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 20:45, 10 August 2015 (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:Cecily von Ziegesar

 * 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cecily von Ziegesar
 * Also redundant to Gossip Girl TV. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - since the template was nominated, it has been greatly expanded with a variety of links to von Ziegesar's works. It now has enough links to provide useful navigation and it is not redundant to Gossip Girl TV.  --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Whilst I have some issues with most of the links all redirecting to the same article, there seems to be enough live links in the It Girl series to warrant a navbox.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- sometimes all it takes is a little attention to get things polished up! As the template looks now, I see no reason to remove it. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 20:49, 10 August 2015 (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:Prvoslav Vujčić

 * 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. —  Earwig   talk 03:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Umm. Nothing in the navbox is linked other than the author's name, so does not provide any useful navigation! -- Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prvoslav Vujčić


 * Delete as useless for navigation. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:55, 10 August 2015 (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 cricketer six columns

 * 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 G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  12:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC) A fork of infobox cricketer which is functionally no different, since infobox cricketer/career, which they both use, only supports four data columns. If more columns are required, they should be added to the original cricketer infobox. Alakzi (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox cricketer six columns
 * Delete as redundant. Used on only four articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: a proposed template that had scant support for creation. See the discussion at  "Template:Infobox cricketer" only allows four columns: why not six? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These four infoboxes now contain either five or six columns. Which ones should be deleted? Alakzi (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you : I forgot about those articles, and thank you for reminding me about them. From memory, the additional columns were to do with inter-state Twenty20 cricket matches. As the template should be deleted, I'll fix the articles up right now. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2015 (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 Cheerleading Squad

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 September 16. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Unnecessary wrapper of Infobox sports team. Used on only ten articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Cheerleading Squad
 * Keep wrapper - This is a perfect example why we have wrappers: the majority of the parameters of the underlying base template, Template:Infobox sports team, are not appropriate for the particular use for cheerleading squads. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With just ten transclusions, it is a perfect example of a redundant wrapper that consumes more effort than it saves. Any parameters that are "not appropriate" are optional and can be omitted from the articles concerned; as demonstrated in . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2015 (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).

US miniseries templates

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus, though creating list articles has some support independent of what to do with the navboxes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Not a coherent topic for navboxes. They share little in common, other than that they happened to be produced for U.S. television in the same decade. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1990s US miniseries
 * 1980s US miniseries
 * 1970s US miniseries
 * Delete. This is what categories are for. Alakzi (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alakzi. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I tend to agree with the nominator's rationale -- that the American television miniseries are not closely related enough to serve as the basis for a navbox -- but I would also suggest that the creator, User:TAnthony, should be given the opportunity to convert this template to a "list of" article if he so chooses. That said, I don't see this navbox as a useful aid to navigation: too big and too loosely related.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply - I still stand by the usefulness of these (and similar) templates for navigation. In this case, the miniseries is a specific format basically limited to these three decades and of interest to some readers. I created these templates because I wanted to navigate the related articles in a systematic way, and thought others might want to as well, and Category:American television miniseries does not take years into account. That said, since creating them I have a better understanding of nav box guidelines and how these templates violate them. I really don't see the issue with a nav box mirroring a category considering that even WP:NAVBOX concedes that navigation is faster with a navbox vs a category, and as I noted, in this case the category is limited. I also don't agree in general that TV series have to be created by the same company to be "related", if the collection is finite and there is a definitive connection like, in this case, s specific and limited format, or in the case of LGBT web series, a specific topic likely to be searched out by readers. BUT, I get it, the rules are what they are at the moment and I'm just rambling. Thanks, I have copied the templates and will consider a list.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Miniseries are not limited only to those decades and are still created til this day. --Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I tried navigating between some of the articles that are in the navbox using categories, and then doing the same using the nav boxes. It was much simpler to do the latter.  I think that these boxes are consistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia and are easier to use than categories (and there is no risk that someone will come along and just remove the category as non-defining as has happened recently to some articles on my watchlist.)   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  00:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per my previous comments and those of Etamni above. The miniseries-by-year functionality is more useful than the existing categories, and the works in these templates are finite because the genre is specific to these decades.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 02:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to categories and/or lists. --torri2(talk/contribs) 11:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. More appropriate as a category. Masonpatriot (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, replace with categories if they don't exist already. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 09:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Links are not closely related enough, more appropriate, as has been stated, as category.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep These are very interesting templates, they provide a look at a decade, at what interested audiences in that decade, and historically place events in chronological order (something categories don't do). Giving the reader more choices, and more interesting arrangements of those choices, is one function of an on-line encyclopedia. I urge the closer to take into consideration that categories and templates are two very different animals, animals who sometimes overlap on the trails. Randy Kryn 12:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * convert to a list article. informative? yes, but better to format as a list article rather than a navbox which cannot be viewed on mobile devices.  why exclude this from the mobile audience? Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mobil phone use should not dictate template topics. I've already used these templates several times, and have urged their creator to continue thru the 2000s. A list would be good too, but that doesn't negate the quick availability of opening a template and seeing what it has to offer, which, in this case, is a nice historic overview of viewer habits (other than their insatiable appetite for reality programming) during each decade. Randy Kryn 20:48, 27 August 2015 (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).