Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13

Template:Teenage Apocalypse Trilogy

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) 01:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Teenage Apocalypse Trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This will never be used on more than three articles and all three of the films are already in the complete template for all of Gregg Araki's films. This template serves no purpose. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Internal links in the article should be more than enough for a trilogy, unless it were to have many articles about different aspects of the trilogy (characters and whatnot). Star Wars Original Trilogy plus characters plus miscellany? Infobox. This? Nothing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UNBOX (we really don't need a navbox for something this brief) and move the links to the See also section of the relevant articles. --Nat682 (talk) 10:25, 19 April 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 aircraft/help

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) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft/help (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Long out-of-date documentation superceded by that in template:infobox aircraft/doc. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's not documentation. It's intended to be used to provide a skeleton for a user to substitute into a page. Once substituted, they can then populate the fields without having to remember the exact names of all the template's fields or what purpose they serve. Instead of having to navigate to the documentation page, the user can copy the commented skeleton directly into the article they're editing. Karl Dickman ^talk 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  The documentation page already contains such a skeleton, and it is no more effort to copy and paste it than it would be to substitute a different template. It dates from years back when we didn't have support for proper documentation pages on templates and is basically redundant to the documentation we have now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, we already have a skeleton on the documentation page. Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 13 April 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 pope

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, although the votes for keep are more numerous, the argument for keeping this template is weakened by the fact that it is only a frontend for the more general {{Infobox Christian leader}}. By adding a type parameter, the functionality is identical. It should also be possible to have the type parameter set to "pope" when say a "papacy_begin"/"papacy_end" parameter is invoked, which would even make this |type=Pope unnecessary, and a redirect work without modification. The majority of the votes in favor of keeping this template appear to have not looked at the template code. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pope (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Christian leader}}. Check User:Magioladitis/Sandbox for instance. We can delete or redirect there. Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect, but first change all instances to use the type = pope parameter. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect per Frietjes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and Update. Popes have relevent fields of the infobox (which should be updated) that are not common to other Christian leaders.

1. Popes take regnal names, therefore info fields for their birth names are needed
2. Popes are not simply enthroned into a diocese like other Christian leaders (eg. bishops), rather their papacy is more like a reign
3. Include info/links for the conclave which they were elected in. Perhaps pertinent to note when the conclave began and ended, which gives an idea to how many ballots were needed to elect the pope
4. As popes are required to be elected from the conclave, dates of all of their ordinations and elevations should be included

There may be others. - Alvincura (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Popes are inherently different entities and are distinct from Christian leaders. I find this suggestion very strange, and a total waste of time anyway. There is so much content to improve, just deleting templates at will, wastes time and does not help readers. Just keep it and move on to improve article content elsewhere. By the way, the nominator can not vote, and the vote should be by others. History2007 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Did you actually look at the code used by this template? All it does is take the parameters and pass them straight to {{Infobox Christian leader}}. By definition, I would call that redundant. Where did the nominator vote? Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I find that trying to make an infobox "one-size-fits-all" causes it to be more complicated than it's worth. And why the pope infobox, and not {{Infobox cardinal}}? --Bwpach (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It already is one-size-fits-all, it just passes the parameters to {{Infobox Christian leader}}. Your comment about the cardinal box is correct, it should also be redirected after adding the |type=Cardinal to each use. Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All the popes have their infoboxes, and Benedict is looking fairly healthy, so there is no real need for a new way to do things. And I think passing parameters is a good thing, because the fields are more self-explanatory. This is helpful, since there is a lack of documentation for these templates. Does this, perhaps, contribute to the decline in new editors? --Bwpach (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Alvincura. Also, none of the fields available in {{Infobox Christian leader}} ("Appointed," "Enthroned") suitably describes elevation to the papacy, so we would suffer a loss in meaning if we tried to shoehorn popes into the generic infobox.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Really? None of the fields? Seems strange since {{Infobox pope}} just calls {{Infobox Christian leader}} without modification. Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're right -- I was looking at the "Papacy began" and "Papacy ended" fields, but didn't look far enough down on Infobox Christian leader to see where this can be set to show up with the type=Pope switch.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment see a discussion on 22 August 2009 for prior consensus on this matter. Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Popes need an infobox of their own because there a special type. {{Infobox Christian leader}} just doesn't cut it. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  Why? If you actually look at the code for "infobox pope" you will see it does nothing. It just passes parameters to the "Christian leader" template. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• None of the editors above discussing technical differences between the templates know what they're talking about. As repeatedly pointed out, since September 2009 {{infobox pope}} has subclassed to {{infobox Christian leader}} anyway, so it absolutely does support everything that {{infobox pope}} does. If you take an existing pope article and stick subst: in front of the infobox declaration it spits out a fully-working {{infobox Christian leader}}. That's what will happen when this TfD is closed. If there are enhancements proposed then they can just as easily be added to the greater meta-template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  Absolutely. In fact, it's actually even easier than that. You just replace {{Infobox pope, with {{Infobox Christian leader | type = pope, so even the arguments about the new syntax being inappropriate are entirely false. It's the exact same syntax! You just add "type = pope", like this, that's it. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong redirect per nom. --Nat682 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Alvincura. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:02am • 23:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  Did you look at the code for this template? Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as per Alvincura --Jtle515 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Again, I have to ask, did you look at the code for this template? It appears this rationale is not valid, since "infobox pope" just passes parameters directly to "infobox Christian leader" without modification. In short, "infobox pope" does nothing. See Glenfarclas's comments above. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Alvincura's reasoning. 67.154.84.130 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Alvincura's reasoning. 70.96.13.209 (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Bwpact et al. Really? This is hardly redudant.. The code does look similar in some areas - but again there is no one-size-fits-all. Outback the koala (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: An IP has been deleting the infobox on some pages in what I beleive to be bad faith, see diff for instance. I dont know where else this has been occuring. Going around the discussion process should not be tolerated and reverted immediately. Outback the koala (talk) 19:19, 22 April 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.