Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12

Template:DB class 628

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 subst and delete Magioladitis (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DB class 628 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate use of template space. Suggest subst and delete. PC78 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom - this is a pretty clear cut case. Chutznik (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Law schools in Connecticut

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Law schools in Connecticut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicative template, as the more comprehensive navbox Template:Law schools of New England already includes the info included in this template. Masonpatriot (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --GHcool (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Litchfield Law School wasn't in Template:Law schools of New England yet, but I've added it now. Jafeluv (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Frankly, it probably shouldn't be in the template because the law school hasn't been in operation for about 180 years. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops, I just assumed since it was in the other template that it belongs in the other one. Removed now. Jafeluv (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox The X-Files episode

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The X-Files episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary series specific infobox; redundant to {{Infobox Television episode}} that adds no real value to it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Yes it does, it uses many sub sections seen in other templates for notable TV series. Many of its subsections are not used in the main template... Its different..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need (talk • contribs) 13:38, July 12, 2009

The subsections aren't in the main template because they are not needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this could be heavily debated, but the main template have included certain subsections because not all shows need them. The main template is supposed to be neutral for all shows. But that doesn't mean they are not needed. --TIAYN (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per redundancy to existing general episode template. Each TV show does not get its own special template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but seen as this show was on of the biggest of the 90s and the second-longest Sci-Fi series in the world, it has notibility. Why does shows like The 4400 and The Wire get on and not The X-Files? --TIAYN (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This argument is wrong. We don't create templates depending on the notability of the subject. The subject can be important but an existing template could be able to do the job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked at the situation and have come to the conclusion that this template is not needed. {{Infobox Television episode}} can be used instead, as there is little difference between the two. -- GameShowKid – talk – evidence 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, guess we have to WP:ALLORNOTHING {{Infobox Simpsons episode}} too? ViperSnake151 Talk 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete all infobox xyz episode templates ({{Infobox Simpsons episode}}, {{Infobox The Wire episode}}, others), which would be a different TFD. Doodle77 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This argument is wrong. Here we are examining the specific template. Another discussion can be made later. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a real argument. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Other series have their own because they meet notability (i.e., they have met critical acclaim or been mentioned in x amount of media material) and/or are active wikiprojects. The X-Files meets both. The Flash ^{talk} 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does the notability of the series have to do with having an infobox that is a duplicate of an existing one with all of two added fields? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, I also mentioned active wiki-project. Honestly, there isn't much in the template that isn't in the infobox television, yes, and I agree, but from what I know of Wikipedia policy, an active wikiproject warrants, like having a color field in Template:Infobox television series. But, still, I'm unsure. The Flash ^{talk} 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, having an active Wikiproject is not a valid reason for making a new infobox (and really, that "project" is a task force under the TV project, it was just created before the project creation guidelines was modified to discourage such single show projects. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the TV series infobox have an extra color field? Anyways, I suppose I'm unsure if it should be kept. It has extra fields unavailable on the normal episode infobox, but I'm unsure. The Flash ^{talk} 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old legacy code - there have been discussions on removing that, I just can't remember the status of that at the moment. The question is, are the extra fields in this a valid enough reason to have a separate infobox rather than discussion whether they should be added to the main infobox itself. Very show specific items are almost always excessively in-universe material that doesn't belong in the infobox anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Per nom, redundant. Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The keeps universally fail to acknowledge that the whole point here is to avoid template proliferation; this template is scarcely a month old, with < 50 transclusions, and as such has nowhere near the penetration of contemporary templates. We should aim to encourage people to use the existing generic template rather than forking it at will. There's need for this fork. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep it because I was under the assumption active wiki-projects are allowed them and that it was on every X-Files episode, but I've learned both are wrong. This would be a good time to get more inclusions to the Infobox episode as I know for a fact it's lacking in several needed variables that make these templates be created. The Flash ^{talk} 16:44, 22 July 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ami Suzuki

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ami Suzuki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no point of having two templates when Template:Ami Suzuki singles covers everything that is on this template. MS (Talk|Contributions) 04:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom: redirect Template:Ami Suzuki and target to Template:Ami Suzuki singles. Chutznik (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.