Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

October 21

Template:Infobox pageant titleholder

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. While there appears to be some support for merging this and the model template into a common template (e.g., with {{Infobox person}}), there is no consensus for merging this template into {{Infobox model}}. As it has been pointed out, not all pageant winners are models and not all models are pageant winners, however, they are both people. I suggest continuing this discussion (e.g., a modules, subboxes, and/or a common name that would suit both templates) on the respective talk pages. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox pageant titleholder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I suggest merging with {{Infobox model}}. Almost everything is common, we can merge the rest and remove "sexual orientation" and "natural breasts". Then we really have to reconsider some more parameters but we can do that in template's talk page. Magioladitis (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. I've looked at this before but hadn't actually realised the degree of overlap. Looking at the parameters, all you would really need to add to {{infobox model}} are |title= and |competitions=, and maybe |natural_bust=. As for the rest, |films= doesn't seem particuarly useful, and sexual orientation doesn't seem appropriate for an infobox; would |skin_color= be more or less equivalent to |ethnicity=? As an aside, I don't see why the infobox should be for titleholders as opposed to all contestants. PC78 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

|natural_bust= is not about the size but about being natural or not (boolean), which usually comes unsourced and certainly not an important thing we would expect in an infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose The infobox contains extra fields of relevance to pageant titleholders such as their titles and the competitions they have competed in which relate to their notability. Not all pageant titleholders are models and they should not fall under that umbrella. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of the template in action, see Chelsea Cooley. Cooley is not a model, so a template proclaiming such would be wrong. Fields are relevant to her pageant titles. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the output of {{Infobox model}} does it proclaim the individual is a model. If you don't like having "Infobox model" appear in the wikitext, then use a redirect. It doesn't change the fact that the output from the two templates is around 90% identical. If you object to even that, how about we merge this with {{Infobox person}}, unless she isn't a person. 64.128.201.49 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that reasoning why not merge the model infobox into the person infobox? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extra fields would be added to {{Infobox model}}, so nothing would be lost in that regard. The inclusion of overly specific fields in {{Infobox person}} is not necessarily desirable. PC78 (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the modules approach. You use the standard {{Infobox person}}, then plug in small module with just the pageant information. Just a thought. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Whether these two templates are merged or not, I think that in this case subclassing would be preferable over a merge to {{Infobox person}}. PC78 (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The fields used by both template are nearly identical. The only objection appears to be that the name "model" is not appropriate. I'm sure that can be resolved with a simple redirect. The appearance would not be changed, obviously. 64.128.201.49 (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm no expert on the topic of these templates, but if this proposed merge went through, would that mean all the template headings would display "Model" instead of "Beauty pageant titleholder"? Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because {{Infobox model}} doesn't have a heading. The heading in {{Infobox pageant titleholder}} is very atypical. PC78 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Most pageant titleholders are not models and should not be grouped with them. The fact that a few categories happen to overlap is irrelevant. These are two very different groups of people, and should not be lumped together.Ejgreen77 talk • contribs 01:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a fine argument if we were discussing merging categories, but this is a template, and with such a high degree of overlap it makes sense to merge. PC78 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it helps alleviate concerns, see Template:Infobox model/testcases. This is a side-by-side comparison of the infobox for Chelsea Cooley and how it would look if this template were merged into {{Infobox model}}. PC78 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: Models may be pageants or not and vice-versa pageants may be models or not. Two different concepts. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose- Pageant titleholders and models are different. Sure, some might do both, but the work, productions, audiences, etc. are all different. --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, what does this have to do with the template, which can clearly cater for both? PC78 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are over 80 different infoboxes for describing people, as seen here. Why not move some of those? If we have infoboxes for musical artists & artists & so many other subgroups, why single out pageant titleholders for merging? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. Other people infoboxes are brought to TfD for discussion, but here we're discussing this one, so please stick to the topic at hand. PC78 (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree. First of all, this isn't a majority vote. Secondly, we can find a better name for the merged infobox than "Infobox model", thirdly we are in a process of standarising infoboxes. Probably more will come. Moreover, specialised infoboxes for some people categories it's not some kind of barnstar. -- Magioladitis 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The infobox for deletion actually contains unique fields and makes it easier for use. werldwayd (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing deletion. We are discussing merging i.e. keeping the unique fields. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is easier to use the way it is. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way would a merge make things more dificult? PC78 (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as you can see here, Template:Infobox_model/testcases, none of these fields would be removed. The title of them template could be easily modified, or a redirect could be kept to preserve the name of the template. 76.18.85.254 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not only is there little difference between the templates, but the model infobox is more aesthetically appealing. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One illustrative example: if you go to Quentin Tarantino, you'll find that the article uses {{Infobox actor}}, although QT is predominantly a film director. At the time, there weren't any separate templates for film directors and producers, simply because they weren't needed. Today, {{Infobox actor}} redirects to {{Infobox person}}, which doesn't mean that all people who use it are the same - it simply means they can be adequately described with it. GregorB (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - this infobox contains unique fields which is only for beauty pageant girls. And their are so many beauty pageant women articles. To delete it would not serve in th best interest of Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't discussing deletion, only a merge. PC78 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as you can see here, Template:Infobox_model/testcases, none of these fields would be removed. The title of them template could be easily modified, or a redirect could be kept to preserve the name of the template. 76.18.85.254 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've got nothing against beauty pageants.
Bathing suits. Pretty girls. Bathing suits. What's not to like?
But why does something of such a frivolous and ephemeral nature warrant a template at all?
And the data tends to be rather US-centric, does it not?
Varlaam (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. My initial thought was to oppose for the conceptual reasons mentioned above: not every pageant winner is a model. But on closer inspection the infoboxes are similar enough, and the name can be retained as a redirect to avoid confusion. As to the field differences, the "natural bust" and sexual orientation fields seem inappropriate to begin with (hard to source, and likely to produce BLP problems), and most of the other fields are duplicated. The documentation of the fields is better for the pageant template, which could be used to improve the documentation for the model template upon merge. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose- In view of the reasons specified by PageantUpdater that pageant titleholder infobox includes additional fields of significance to pageant titleholders such as their titles and the competitions they have competed in which relate to their notability; therefore, it should not be merged. Likewise, I agree with Oakshade that pageant titleholders and models are different as to work, productions, audiences, etc. --Richie Campbell (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, as you can see here, Template:Infobox_model/testcases, none of these fields would be removed. The title of them template could be easily modified, or a redirect could be kept to preserve the name of the template. 76.18.85.254 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I wish people would actually look at what is being proposed here, rather than just making a kneejerk "oppose" !vote. A single template will be perfectky adequate for both models and pageant contestants. As already demonstrated, the merged template will be virtually identical to the current pageant infobox. PC78 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Infobox person}} as suggested by PageantUpdater above. To facilitate this, one could create a "pagaent module" for use with {{Infobox person}} as suggested above, or just merge it completely. Then, do the same for {{Infobox model}}, but that is for another discussion. 76.18.85.254 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose A beauty pageant titleholder is not a model and vice versa. Modeling is an occupation. Being in a beauty pageant is not an occupation but it is symbolic and people are very interested in them. As for the actual infobox itself, it could use a good edit. "Skin colour" and "sexual orientation" and "natural bust size" are not really that necessary, are they?(mikomango (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: I think merging this Infobox on beauty pageant would not serve in the best interest of Wikipedia. As Tyra Banks states many times on ANTM its a huge difference between a model and a beauty pageant girl. Also the special pageant related parts of the infobox would be lost as a pageant girl dont necessarily have to be a model. Its a difference, its like saying that we should merge the Politician infobox with the Criminal infobox. Its a no-match situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose There are different aspects that are unique to each template. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:55, 13 November 2010 (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:Mac OS X DevTools

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mac OS X DevTools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough content to justify this sort of template; could be summarized in a See also section. ℳono 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reason to delete. Has a fair amount of transclusions. -- œ ^™ 03:32, 22 October 2010 (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:Lists

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. --RL0919 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Box containing links to lists of WikiProjects, Portals and Notice Boards. Looking at the pages where this is transcluded (mostly categories), it doesn't appear to used in any meaningful fashion. For example, why does Category:Wikipedians interested in Washington need to link to a list of all Portals? PC78 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find Template:Lists useful and unobtrusive on category pages. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is the purpose of these links? Per WP:ATA, "useful" and "unobtrusive" are not compelling arguments to keep. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea maxima culpa! This template provides links to other sources of information of possible interest to members of a user interest category. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They're just generic links though, they have nothing to do with the pages where this template is used. Please explain why this template is useful or necessary, because so far as I can see it's just template spam. PC78 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template is useful for novice users who may need assistance in finding, or who may not even be aware of, portals, WikiProjects, and notice boards related to a category. This template is most commonly used in conjunction with templates for specific portals, WikiProjects, and notice boards to provide access to less obvious resources. Please see Category:Wikipedians interested in Wisconsin for an example. I find this template still useful after 76,000 edits. Yours aye, Buaidh 19:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an entirely hypothetical need. And on the page you link to, there are already links for the relevant portal, wikiproject and noticeboard. These additional generic links are therefore redundant and irrelevant. We need only direct people from A to B, not from A to C. PC78 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be the only user who finds Template:Lists exasperating. This template is used in conjunction with the templates below which have already been approved. Perhaps other templates are more deserving of your wrath. Yours aye, Buaidh 06:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear to be the only one who sees a need for this template, which as the creator is understandable. But I haven't found your arguments in any way convincing. If you have nothing further to add, why not leave it for others to comment? PC78 (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think they have already spoken. --Buaidh 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any need for this... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful navigation aid. Does not detract from the pages it's transcluded on. Good to have multiple options of style of linking. -- œ ^™ 03:37, 22 October 2010 (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:Sketch comedies

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 Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sketch comedies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hopelessly incomprehensive. This is way beyond a navbox; it fails at its purported task of getting people quickly to related articles because there are too many links and most of them are only very loosely interrelated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. UNLESS, it can be improved somehow, but as it looks now it's not very useful as a navigation aid.. too much, too random. Pretty much an eyesore on small stub pages its on. Nothing the category can't do better. -- œ ^™ 03:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be "improved" because the concept itself is unworkable, unhelpful, and cumbersome. This is not the purpose of these templates.--Kyorosuke | Talk 09:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many possible entries for a usable navbox. This is what categories are for, and Category:Television sketch shows does the job nicely. --RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2010 (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:Beawar district

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) 02:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beawar district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is about a non-existing district.It must be deleted. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okaay.. must it? sooo if Beawar is just a city and not a "district", then can't we just rename the template and its title to whatever the actual name of the district is? (creator now notified of discussion) -- œ ^™ 03:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beawar is part of Ajmer district which already has its own template - Template:Ajmer district.Thanks. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok then, delete. Although apparently it's a 'proposed' district though.. I dunno, I'm unfamiliar with the local geography there. -- œ ^™ 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The district doesn't exist yet. utcursch | talk 03:13, 25 October 2010 (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 University School

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 Merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Infobox University}}, which is only used on a handful of pages. Could be merged with that template given the similarity of the parameters. A redirect could be used to preserve the name "University School" if that is desired. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom. Redundant. -- œ ^™ 03:52, 22 October 2010 (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:ThaiPuppets

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) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ThaiPuppets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only really navigates one article and a section of another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite useless. Only 1 transclusion. -- œ ^™ 03:54, 22 October 2010 (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:On Deck

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) 05:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:On Deck (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{The Suite Life}}. Template was created today by an editor who thought it better to duplicate content across two templates, which were both then included in some articles, than to fix some minor issues in {{The Suite Life}}, which was created specifically to accommodate both The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and its sequel/spin-off, The Suite Life on Deck without duplication of content, replacing Template:The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and Template:The Suite Life on Deck. The two series are closely related and share a core cast and many recurring characters. There is no need for a second, duplicated template that also unnecessarily includes multiple links to the same articles. AussieLegend (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. The parent template is a bit complicated, though. Could it be reformatted to reduce duplication? Right now it seems to go out of its way to explain the differences between the two shows; navboxes should really be about getting people to related pages as quickly as possible, leaving the actual detail to the articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that identifying the articles relevant to the respective programs would aid speedy navigation. How would you fix the original version? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Truth be told I think that revision is significantly better because of the material it elides. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, we can always revert back to that, although it doesn't clearly separate the cast members, which might confuse people. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are not absolutely any verifiable sources to confirm that the 'Suite Life on Deck' is a sequel to the 'Suite Life of Zack & Cody', moreover Disney has stated numerous times the 'On Deck' series is an official spin-off of the 'Zack and Cody' series and has never referred to the 'On Deck' series as a sequel. The two series are closely related due to the spin-off link, however does not share a core cast (Ashley Tisdale and Kim Rhodes) and clearly does not share many recurring characters. The truth is, the 'On Deck' series does not have any recurring characters from the 'Zack and Cody' series, however five characters from the 'Zack & Cody' series have had very limited and minor roles in the 'On Deck' series, furthermore no where near 'recurring character' status, each of the five 'Zack and Cody' characters appeared in one episode of the spin-off. Moreover, a separate television series deserves its own template. Every spin-off of a series has its own template, why doesn't the 'On Deck' series deserve its own template? The Suite Life on Deck and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody are two separate television shows, that are affiliated to one another, however this is not a solid reason to combine two TV shows into one template. There are far too many characters on 'On Deck' who were not introduced or known in the 'Zack and Cody' series, which further verifies the series is a spin-off and not a 'Zack and Cody 2.0' show. The mere duplication is the duplication of three links, Zack Martin, Cody Martin and London Tipton.--Randolph3 (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not "The Suite Life on Deck is a sequel" is really not an issue here. I referred to it as a "sequel/spin-off" because it can be viewed as both. It certainly displays significant elements of a sequel. It began airing only a very short time after the finale of "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody" with four of the six main cast members in the same roles doing exactly the same things, only in a different setting. The two main cast members who didn't continue as regulars to the new series have since reprised their roles (Tisdale once and Rhodes three times). Major recurring cast members Brian Stepanek and Adrian R'Mante have also reprised their roles (Stepanek twice, R'Mante once) as have six other recurring characters from "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody" who appeared once each. That's a total of ten characters (not five) and thirteen appearances; the claim that two shows don't share a core cast or many recurring characters just doesn't hold water. As for those characters having "very limited and minor roles in the 'On Deck' series", main/recurring characters have been central to the plots in every episode in which they've appeared (episodes 7,9,13,16,35,43 & 56. Of particular note, "Maddie on Deck" was both named for and about Ashley Tisdale's character, "Mom and Dad on Deck" was about Kim Rhodes' and Robert Torti's characters, and "Mother of the Groom" was about Adrian R'Mante's character's marriage. "Computer Date" is based around the arrival of Brian Stepanek's character and his actions on-board ship. The assertion that the characters had very limited and minor roles is yet another claim not supported by the evidence. There is clearly justification for a combined template for these closely related series. "{{On Deck}}" ~~has been~~was padded by inclusion of multiple links to the same article. Of the twenty links in the template, there ~~are~~were seven links to two articles. Another is a link to "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody", which is already included in {{The Suite Life}}. There are only 13 unique "Suite Life on Deck" links in this template. The duplicated links actually total five, not three. Randolph3 omitted Mr. Moseby and The Suite Life Movie. This of course excludes all of the links that he deleted from {{The Suite Life}} when he split out to a fourth template (including the original two templates that {{The Suite Life}} replaced}). In total there are only 26 links in the version of The Suite Life Movie that existed before {{On Deck}} was created.[1] The creation of {{On Deck}} results in two templates with 3832 links between them, including two that he omitted from {{The Suite Life}} and the seven links to only two articles in {{On Deck}}. For such a small number of links, ten of which apply to both series, two separate, small templates makes no sense at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the duplicated links in accordance with WP:NAVBOX, which says to avoid multiple links to the same article. This reduces the total number of links in the two templates from 38 to 32, only 6 more than in a single template. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had fixed it, but the template creator doesn't seem to agree with WP:NAVBOX.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess nobody is interested in this template, but I will note that an IP removed it from all articles on October 22, 2010, so it has been unused since then and consequently serves no purpose. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two are clearly going to contain redundancies due to overlap in the series, and for all the arguing there is no clear reason why one more comprehensive template won't work instead of two. --RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2010 (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.