Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 19 December 21 >

December 20

[edit]

Template:Location map Poland-PD

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; articles are using Module:Location map/data/Poland Podlaskie Voivodeship instead Frietjes (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Location map Moldova Cahul local

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; articles are using Module:Location map/data/Moldova Cahul, Module:Location map/data/Moldova Cantemir, Module:Location map/data/Moldova Găgăuzia, and Module:Location map/data/Europe instead Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Location map Colombia Arauca

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and inferior to an interactive {{mapframe}} Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom Weston-super-Mare

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and better to use an interactive {{mapframe}} Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Infobox farm

[edit]
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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox farm into Template:Infobox park.

Suggest merging to the park infobox, because Template:Infobox garden was merged into that. Apart from synonyms, and generic parameters (which could instead be converted in the ten existing transclusions), only |produce= would need to be added, and that can apply to (market) gardens also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Only eight articles use the farm infobox. And three of them do not use |produce=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant; there are innumerous articles on farms, many of which I personally know will benefit from this infobox. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose vehemently. Farms and parks are radically different things; this is like merging Infobox Outhouse and Infobox Statehouse just because they share location and sqft parameters. Infobox farm, as well, could and should have many other useful and unique parameters, like type (public, private, coop, working historical farm, etc), owner(s), manager(s), locations, livestock or crop types, production method (organic, conventional, biodynamic), and more. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "this is like merging Infobox Outhouse and Infobox Statehouse" Indeed. Both would use {{Infobox building}}. The question is not how similar are the subjects, but how similar are the infoboxes. Furthermore, note my point about {{Infobox garden}}. Infobox park already has |type=, |owner=, |location= and |manager=, which suggests that you (and Tom (LT) who echoes your comment, below) are !voting without actually having looked at the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only difference between parks and farms vs outhouses and statehouses is that there's a common term for the latter: buildings. Thus an editor writing a new article or adding a new infobox, upon finding out there's no {{Infobox outhouse}}, will use {{Infobox building}}. So what happens if an editor finds out there's no {{Infobox farm}}? Even if it redirected them to the park infobox, they'll think it's wrong to use (because it is).
        Anyway, your logic is flawed - I simply stated important aspects that are lacking from the farm infobox, most of which Infobox park does not have and should never have. Crops and livestock do not belong in a park, nor do decorative flowers, benches, and fountains belong on a farm. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're thinking about them physically (even though they're still insanely different that way). We don't just merge radically different topics' infoboxes together simply because they happen to share most parameters. Farms are more like organizations (as they often are one organization/company), and thus also need parameters like: logo, predecessor, founder, status, purpose, region, services, leader_title, leader_name, board_of_directors, key_people, main_organ, parent_organization, staff, volunteers, website... Almost all of these could be used on the article Stone Barns, as well as more agricultural params like type (public, private, coop, working historical farm, etc), livestock or crop types, and production method (organic, conventional, biodynamic). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "what happens if an editor finds out there's no {{Infobox farm}}?" Template:Infobox farm will - just like Template:Infobox garden - redirect to Template:Infobox park, which , instead of explaining, as it does at present, "This Infobox template can be used in articles about parks and gardens.", will say "This Infobox template can be used in articles about parks, gardens and farms." HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "parameters like: logo, predecessor, founder, status, purpose, region, services, leader_title, leader_name, board_of_directors, key_people, main_organ, parent_organization, staff, volunteers, website." Every. Single. One. of those parameters can be applied to parks. Or to gardens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're ridiculous; a redirect with a small hatnote is barely an answer to a new editor trying to write in {{infobox farm, or searching for it on the search bar or from a list. And no, parks are generally public, owned by a government, and that's why "logo, predecessor, founder, status, purpose, region, services, leader_title, leader_name, board_of_directors, key_people, main_organ, parent_organization, staff, volunteers, website" are typically irrelevant and thus are not and should not be part of the parks infobox. You can't merely say 'oh this could exist in parks too' for any one radically rare instance. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Not the same! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with a radical Suggestion. My main objection to many of these merges is the converse of the argument Pigsonthewing uses. I care more about the parameters of the merge target that are not appropriate for the merge source. That is, there are parameters in {{Infobox park}} that are not appropriate or that useful for farms (e.g., |camp_sites=, |hiking_trails=, |collections=, |transit=). This is asking for misuse.
    The main problem is that farms are not protected areas, but are means of production. Thus, my radical suggestion would be to merge this with {{Infobox factory}}, because those too are means of production. You wouldn't have to even add |produce=, because |products= already exists in {{Infobox factory}}. We may wish to reconsider renaming {{Infobox factory}} to be something more general. —hike395 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time and again you, Hike395, have opposed template merges on these grounds, only for the community consensus to go against you. In this case, the merge you propose is between two radically-different templates, with very few overlapping parameters

If by "time and again", Mr. Mabbett means "once", then he is correct. I have responded to a total of 9 infobox deletion/merge proposals by Mr. Mabbett in the last 6 years, and in only 1 case did my !vote go against consensus (for {{Infobox beach}}). I would ask Mr. Mabbett to stop misrepresenting my positions on Wikipedia. This misrepresentation appears to me to be a form of argumentum ad hominem and is not a valid reason to either keep or delete a template. —hike395 (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting data for Hike395's !votes on template deletion nominations by Pigsonthewing
  • Green means Hike395 !vote agrees with consensus
  • Red means Hike95 !vote disagrees with consensus
  • Yellow means no consensus
Geobox --- Hike395 supported delete, no consensus
Infobox National Natural Landmark --- Hike395 supported delete, deleted
Infobox Hawaiian island ---Hike395 supported merge, merged
Infobox valley --- Hike395 opposed merge, not merged
Infobox forest --- Hike395 opposed merge, not merged
Infobox rockclimbing crag --- Hike395 supported delete, delete
Infobox protected area --- Hike395 supported merge, no consensus
Infobox rockunit --- Hike395 opposed merge, not merged
Infobox beach --- Hike395 opposed merge, merged


Comparison of farm and factory infoboxes
Parameter Infobox factory Infobox farm
address Yes No
alt

Alt

Yes Yes
architect Yes No
area Yes Yes
buildings Yes No
built Yes No
caption

Caption

Yes Yes
coordinates Yes Yes
coordinates_ref Yes No
country No Yes
defunct Yes No
disestablished No Yes
employees Yes No
established No Yes
grid_ref_Ireland No Yes
grid_ref_UK No Yes
image

Image

Yes Yes
image_size No Yes
image_upright Yes No
industry Yes No
location Yes Yes
location_map Yes No
location_map_alt Yes No
location_map_caption Yes No
location_map_relief Yes No
location_map_size Yes No
location_map_text Yes No
location_map_width Yes No
map_alt No Yes
map_caption No Yes
map_label No Yes
map_label_position No Yes
map_name No Yes
map_relief No Yes
map_width No Yes
mapframe Yes Yes
mapframe_height No Yes
mapframe_lat No Yes
mapframe_latitude No Yes
mapframe_long No Yes
mapframe_longitude No Yes
mapframe_marker No Yes
mapframe_marker_color No Yes
mapframe_marker_colour No Yes
mapframe_width No Yes
mapframe_zoom No Yes
mapframe-caption Yes No
mapframe-height Yes No
mapframe-lat Yes No
mapframe-latitude Yes No
mapframe-long Yes No
mapframe-longitude Yes No
mapframe-marker Yes No
mapframe-marker-color Yes No
mapframe-marker-colour Yes No
mapframe-stroke-color Yes No
mapframe-stroke-colour Yes No
mapframe-width Yes No
mapframe-zoom Yes No
name

Name

Yes Yes
operated Yes No
owner Yes Yes
owners Yes No
prefecture No Yes
produce No Yes
products Yes No
province No Yes
qid No Yes
relief Yes No
state No Yes
status No Yes
style Yes No
volume Yes No
width

Width

No Yes

Furthermore, there are farms which include camping a side-business ([1]), farms with hiking trails ([2]), and farms that are reachable by public transport ([3], so that argument is false also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, caught yourself there, I see. You're literally the only one who supports the insanely ridiculous notion that public transit should exist on the farm infobox; show me literally any actual evidence why. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and instead support Hike395's proposal to merge with Template:Infobox factory. The people who use these template don't care the extent to which the parameters overlap. It is simply not intuitive to use the park infobox on a farm article. Directing people to do so makes it harder to edit Wikipedia, and that should be an important consideration. Hike395's important point that Park will contain available but irrelevant and potentially misused parameters for farm articles goes to the same point about ease of use. Also, Ɱ rightly points out the any expansion of Template:Infobox farm will necessarily radically differ from Template:Infobox park. On the other hand, it might indeed be intuitive to combine Farm and Factory. The extent to which the templates overlap is only relevant to technical feasibility. The focus should be whether the templates are similar in scope. If they are—and they are—then merging is a good idea. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the farm template has only eight transclusions, and I applied some of them, which people do you think you are speaking for? Alternatively, which people would be inconvenienced by the addition of a single parameter to the park template? How will that be "misused"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Historically low use of a template is not an argument for deletion/merging; it's a valid infobox with innumerous potential uses. And, no, it's not a single addition; there are a great many additions I listed above that are totally irrelevant to parks, and park params that are totally irrelevant to farms; thus allowing for misuse. Why don't you get that? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I'm asserting that the availability of parameters in Infobox Park that should not be used in an article about a farm could lead to confusion and erroneous use. I said nothing specifically of inconvenience, although there might be inconvenience too. The clarify my other point, when I said the people who use these templates, I meant all infoboxes, not just Infobox Farm. But I'm not sure I understand your point. So few people edit with Infobox Farm that we shouldn't pay attention to its ease of use? --Bsherr (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the merge of {{Infobox farm}} into {{Infobox factory}} gains consensus, I volunteer to convert the 8 articles to {{Infobox factory}}. This should remove the validity of any argument that it would be difficult to convert {{Infobox farm}} due to non-overlapping parameters. —hike395 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, Tom (LT), and Capankajsmilyo: (and any other interested editors...) You have not yet expressed any thoughts or opinions about merging {{Infobox farm}} into {{Infobox factory}}. What do you think? —hike395 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:Positionskarte/Lineare Kegelprojektion

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and not likely to be used since the creation of old "Template:Location map ..." location maps is blacklisted. Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:AHL Outdoor Classic

[edit]
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 delete. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially is a duplicate list of AHL teams already found in Template:American Hockey League, including linking to the AHL Outdoor Classic article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey prefers less navbox clutter, and is generally against participatory navboxes linked better elsewhere. Per this brief discussion at the talk page. (The project prefers prose, "See also" sections, or a main generalized navbox as in the main league template). Yosemiter (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Unfinished Article

[edit]
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 delete. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No article is ever finished. This template is basically {{Expand}}, which is deprecated (1, 2). It's way too broad, and other tags are better suited to target specific issues. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Women of Honor World Championship

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox does not aid in navigation. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Caravel Games

[edit]
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 delete. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the template there is only one game now alive with the other being a pure redirect. Thus it has no purpose. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Final girl

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a navbox for this film trope? This a concept, not a defined set, so not really a suitable navbox subject. --woodensuperman 13:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The contents of the navbox are not notable for being 'final girls' they are notable other reasons. I don't think this navbox provides useful navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:History of fashion

[edit]
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 Split timeline from Template:Historical clothing to create Template:Timeline of fashion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rarely used and duplicates a section of {{historical clothing}} Frietjes (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Infobox Final Fantasy character

[edit]
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 merge to Template:Infobox character. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Final Fantasy character with Template:Infobox character.
Template:Infobox video game character is being deleted per previous discussion. As this was a wrapper of the video game template, there is no reason anymore to keep as a wrapper and it can use the character template directly. This template has 6 unique fields - 2 of which are available in the Template:Infobox character directly: |class=, called |occupation= in the character template and |race= called |species= in the character template. The other 4 could either use the custom fields available in the character template or be merged into the template itself and be available directly. Note that while there are 4 additional fields, no infobox has used both |skill= and |specialattack= and both could easily be under an "Abilities" field. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Template:Infobox Mortal Kombat character

[edit]
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 merge to Template:Infobox character. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Mortal Kombat character with Template:Infobox character.
Template:Infobox video game character is being deleted per previous discussion. As this was a wrapper of the video game template, there is no reason anymore to keep as a wrapper and it can use the character template directly. The 3 unique fields this template has could either use the custom fields available at Template:Infobox character or be merged into the template itself and be available directly. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merege per nom, otherwise delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 19:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: All you people don't understand the purpose of enforced standardization. Which is to easily keep and maintain standards, without being drowned in an irrelevant random crap (especially this "otherwise delete" - delete the relevant things in favor of adding the irrelevant!). It worked this way very well for over a decade. There's zero reason for this kind of merging, and what it actually should be merged into is rather only Template:Fighting_game_character as with all other fighting game characters. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do understand that the video game template is being deleted right? This won't work anymore without it. Also, the template you mentioned will be the next to be nominated, I just needed to do some research before to see how it's being used. --Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't quite understand it. We (WE, not you, you didn't) have been using standardized templates for well over a decade. It all served a purpose, only important things for the medium, correctly arranged in a specific order. If something wasn't added it was because we actively didn't need it. Fighting games - fighting styles are essential for fighting game characters, but just a trivia for non fighting game characters. Same with the countries they represent and weapon names. Now if you don't understand what I talk about, DON'T TOUCH IT. Like I don't go around randomly proposing changes about things I don't understand, let's say chemistry subjects, just because I feel so, how odd is that? Should I start doing it? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and why is not anyone talking about it now - it's because sadly almost all the people who also used to be very active in the field have just quit by now (or got driven off from Wikipedia, including being banned sometimes), with hardly any good replacements. I could tell some of them, but it would be "canvassing". Also I wasn't even ever involved in creating or maintaining these templates, they just work very well for what they are supposed to do. There's no need for any major changes (except of removing all the needlessly explanatory internal links from things like "voiced by", which sould be done because it's not a Simple Wiki). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the former. These three parameters—origin, fighting style (martial arts types), and weapons—are trivia that shouldn't be included in the infobox anyway. If the project decides otherwise, the parameter contents can be resuscitated from each page's history and made into custom parameters within {{infobox character}} as needed. I'd like to see a content consensus before these are merged, actually. Perhaps at WT:VG? Merger isn't necessary as the content is not worth transferring. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. You know what you will get instead? You'll get: Religion (yay!), Gender (because it's so important and not obvious!), Nickname(s) AND Aliases, Family AND Spouse(s) AND Significant other(s) AND Children AND Relatives, so that Nakoruru and Chun-li both will get "Family=Unnamed father" (they were never named because they're so important!) and "Gender=Female" (a revelation you would never guess from all the "she" or "her" in the article apparently), instead of anything that matters for a fighting game. I so like where it's going. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you'd spent 1/10 of the time you write these none-sense wall-of-texts, actually reading the documentation you will see that |gender= says The gender of the character. Use only if not obvious. Now if we take a look at the articles you've listed, how is |weapon= value None in fighting matches (expert with firearms) in Chun-li's infobox important? Like all other fields - if the value does not exist, leave it blank. Also, for Nakoruru, how is the |weaponname= important? Neither "Chichi-ushi" nor "Father Bull" are mentioned anywhere in the article. On the other hand, |family= for Mario has much more significance and has even effected both the in-game story and the real-world (and it is even mentioned in the lead). Seems you cherry pick what you call "trivia" and "important". --Gonnym (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:EA Sports 10 games

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary navbox template, EA Sports games released in 2009. No cohesive subject. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:Barbarian kingdoms

[edit]
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 Delete Europe Hegemony. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Barbarian kingdoms with Template:Europe Hegemony.
Perhaps worth considering for a merge? Scope seems much overlapping. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Europe Hegemony knowing something about this subject area, I just can't see the use of the Hegemony template, and feel wikilinks should suffice. I do not support a merge because the Barbarian kingdoms has a clear subject matter whereas Hegemony is confusing and would pollute the better template with, I feel, no navigational benefit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:Anatomists

[edit]
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 delete. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused; appears to duplicate part of Template:History of biology Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a massive argument in favour of deletion. Selective inclusion. Why have only a dozen or so anatomists been selected from the hundreds at Category:Anatomists? However, if all were included, the navbox would become pointless and unmanageable, which is why it is best to leave navigation between these people to the category. --woodensuperman 14:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree (but I do acknowledge there is probably consensus at the moment for deletion). Several anatomists (Galen, Hippocrates, Vesalius, Avicenna, Henry Grey) make an outsized contribution to the study of anatomy. For anatomically interested editors, a navbox such as this provides a useful navigational aid to better understand this history of anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Template:Shark Week

[edit]
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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content, the names of the hosts each year, was removed. What's left is no longer very functional or related, and only contains four links. Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_20&oldid=878896315"