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 deleteMagioladitis (
talk) 16:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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 deleteMagioladitis (
talk) 16:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.