Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 5
| < December 4 | December 6 > |
|---|
December 5
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. DrKiernan (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox University of New England (Australia) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Three transclusions, redundant to the standard Template:Infobox university. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete after replacing with {{infobox residential college}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2013 (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.
- 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. DrKiernan (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox mint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Replaced by Template:Infobox building. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2013 (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.
- 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. DrKiernan (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Dad's Army cast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There is a precedent not to include actors in navboxes, due to the candy-striping that would ensue should an actor be in multiple productions (which most actors are, and why should we give WP:UNDUE weight to the ones with navboxes on the actors' articles), and to the fact that cast lists are better off in articles. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Well, well. @Robsinden: (1) Could you point to any article transcluding this template which would be improved by removing it? (2) What is candy-striping and why it is a bad thing? I believe the allusion is to a worm. (3) If cast lists are better off in articles, why is this template is unsatisfactory? Thincat (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I assume candy striping is a reference to the resemblance to it that having multiple templates on the same article bears. As for this template, delete it in favor of a list in the lead article. Nom is correct that having casts in templates will result in unnecessary clutter for actors who appear in multiple projects. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I wondered about that but in this case there is only a single navbox in each article. I find the situation very mysterious. Thincat (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's only a single navbox on each actor's article, because we generally don't allow actors in navboxes. If we were to implement it, then candystriping would ensue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete, the general guideline is that we don't have actor-centric navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2013 (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.