- 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 relisted on 2014 May 8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Unbanned ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Location map of major earthquakes in Turkey ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only one transclusion. It should be subst'd and deleted. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Chicano languages ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
this navbox links 2 articles, not 3 (one is a redirect). we dont need a navbox to navigate between 2 articles, links in the articles will suffice. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 19:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes ( talk) 16:47, 27 April 2014 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox ARY film awards ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox ARY film awards/style ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused fork of {{ infobox film awards}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant to Infobox film awards.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 21:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 21 April 2014 (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 relisted on 2014 May 8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:London bus operators ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bus companies in Greater London ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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 Keep There is a clear consensus as to the value of the template and undesirability of a merger. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
All the fields of Infobox record label are also included in {{ Infobox company}} except for one, distributor, which can be added to IB company as it could be useful for other kinds of businesses. See the testcases for a direct comparison of the two. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 12:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. This template could easily be expanded with more parameters.
STATic
message me!
22:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- A template being redundant to another is obviously a valid reason for deletion.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. — Status ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: totally agree with STATic. -- DJ UnBa lanced 08:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - template very important/useful to
WP:WikiProject Record Labels. I would really not want it tied to the general company template. More important than what *is* there is what is *not* there.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Separate infoboxes are kept if they have extra parameters, not if they have fewer of them. That would be absurd.--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all absurd. Irrelevant fields confuse new users. That is why many templates have a "most commonly used parameters" area. To create sub-topic specific areas (which would be best if this template is deleted) for a something so broad as "companies" would make navigation difficult.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Having extra fields is never an impediment. Their use is not mandatory, and when they are not required by the article they can be simply removed. A template like Template:Infobox officeholder is used on 70 times as many articles as Infobox record label and to newcomers it is less confusing, not more, because every usage scenario is properly explained in the documentation. Keeping dozens of redundant templates is no replacement for having just one with a good documentation.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Avoid alleged confusion for new users by having a blank with only the preferred parameters, on the project page Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all absurd. Irrelevant fields confuse new users. That is why many templates have a "most commonly used parameters" area. To create sub-topic specific areas (which would be best if this template is deleted) for a something so broad as "companies" would make navigation difficult.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Separate infoboxes are kept if they have extra parameters, not if they have fewer of them. That would be absurd.--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion given. Most infoboxes bring with them hidden maintenance categories too.
→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - {
Talk } -
23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did you even read the documentation before voting? "The template does not create any automatic categorization of the article."-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 11:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep To do as the nom advocates would be to lend support to the view that record labels should be treated, for Wikipedia's purposes, as businesses and nothing more. This sort of reasoning occasionally creeps up in deletion discussions - that record labels are to be judged as corporations and not as publishers of artistic works (and thus whether the standards set by Wikipedia's business experts or music experts ought to decide their fate). Infobox record label directs the user to WikiProject Music, and this is exactly where they should be directed. Publishers of written works of art have a template, which is Infobox Publisher; this is the proper analogue for musical recordings, and there are fields that might profitably be added to Infobox Record Label that wouldn't make sense to include in Infobox Company, such as release format and imprints/sublabels.
Chubbles (
talk)
00:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is -- what a template's called has no bearing on articles. {{ Infobox company}} is, despite the name, a perfect substitute. I think the most appropriate thing to do is to redirect this tpl to {{ Infobox company}} (and add any missing fields or any aliases for existing fields there). — lfdder 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- While wanting to avoid "lending support to a view" is not a reason to keep a template; that concern is easily addressed by keeping the current name as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Very useful infobox, this nomination is completely absurd. Koala15 ( talk) 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Andy, you have a potentially workable idea above, at first glance I like it. However, a some fields need to be added to the Record Labels infobox, the most glaring is "issued formats" (as pointed out by @
Chubbles:) which really doesn't fit "companies", but is specific to a record label. I suppose this field could be added to companies, but then I again question how much industry-specific information we want in a generic infobox.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
18:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- That, along with subsidiaries, imprints and a few others that would be enough to keep it at its own template in the end.
STATic
message me!
19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox company}}already has|subsid=and Ilm about to add|brands=, which should suffice for imprints. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we need
|issued formats=; we'd say that a bakery made bread, we wouldn't bother to list the types and sizes of loaves, or whether they also made buns. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- That, along with subsidiaries, imprints and a few others that would be enough to keep it at its own template in the end.
STATic
message me!
19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Andy, you have a potentially workable idea above, at first glance I like it. However, a some fields need to be added to the Record Labels infobox, the most glaring is "issued formats" (as pointed out by @
Chubbles:) which really doesn't fit "companies", but is specific to a record label. I suppose this field could be added to companies, but then I again question how much industry-specific information we want in a generic infobox.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
18:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- rewrite as a wrapper for {{ infobox company}}. Frietjes ( talk) 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I think the record label infobox helps to expand the Music WikiProject, but I think it could do with more tags that help identify and distinguish it as a record label. Nevertheless I believe that this infobox should be kept. Arun Sunner, You want to fill up MY inbox, do you?! 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep L337p4wn Talk to me! 05:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. makes more sense to me to improve the record label template (maybe add a "notable artists" list, or a CEO line, or an "awards" section or something), instead of destroying it. Also, the "active or inactive" line is very useful, and I don't remember seeing that line on non-label company infoboxes.
Earflaps (
talk)
13:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox company}}already has|key_people=for CEOs. You're fishing for properties in order to keep a template, which it has never needed previously. Talk of destruction is alarmist hyperbole. There will still be an adequate template, to display the same information in all the affected articles, even if this template is redirected or deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Earflaps. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a fucking WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Saying "speedy" doesn't make your keep "vote" any speedier. — lfdder 04:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and as Frietjes suggested, make it a wrapper for the suggested template after it's been updated. Not a redirect to it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:50, 19 April 2014 (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 relisted on 2014 May 8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Unbanned ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Location map of major earthquakes in Turkey ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only one transclusion. It should be subst'd and deleted. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Chicano languages ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
this navbox links 2 articles, not 3 (one is a redirect). we dont need a navbox to navigate between 2 articles, links in the articles will suffice. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 19:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes ( talk) 16:47, 27 April 2014 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox ARY film awards ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox ARY film awards/style ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused fork of {{ infobox film awards}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant to Infobox film awards.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 21:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 21 April 2014 (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 relisted on 2014 May 8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:London bus operators ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Bus companies in Greater London ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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 Keep There is a clear consensus as to the value of the template and undesirability of a merger. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 19:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
All the fields of Infobox record label are also included in {{ Infobox company}} except for one, distributor, which can be added to IB company as it could be useful for other kinds of businesses. See the testcases for a direct comparison of the two. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 12:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. This template could easily be expanded with more parameters.
STATic
message me!
22:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- A template being redundant to another is obviously a valid reason for deletion.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. — Status ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: totally agree with STATic. -- DJ UnBa lanced 08:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - template very important/useful to
WP:WikiProject Record Labels. I would really not want it tied to the general company template. More important than what *is* there is what is *not* there.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Separate infoboxes are kept if they have extra parameters, not if they have fewer of them. That would be absurd.--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all absurd. Irrelevant fields confuse new users. That is why many templates have a "most commonly used parameters" area. To create sub-topic specific areas (which would be best if this template is deleted) for a something so broad as "companies" would make navigation difficult.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Having extra fields is never an impediment. Their use is not mandatory, and when they are not required by the article they can be simply removed. A template like Template:Infobox officeholder is used on 70 times as many articles as Infobox record label and to newcomers it is less confusing, not more, because every usage scenario is properly explained in the documentation. Keeping dozens of redundant templates is no replacement for having just one with a good documentation.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Avoid alleged confusion for new users by having a blank with only the preferred parameters, on the project page Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not at all absurd. Irrelevant fields confuse new users. That is why many templates have a "most commonly used parameters" area. To create sub-topic specific areas (which would be best if this template is deleted) for a something so broad as "companies" would make navigation difficult.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Separate infoboxes are kept if they have extra parameters, not if they have fewer of them. That would be absurd.--
eh bien mon prince (
talk)
13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion given. Most infoboxes bring with them hidden maintenance categories too.
→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - {
Talk } -
23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did you even read the documentation before voting? "The template does not create any automatic categorization of the article."-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 11:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep To do as the nom advocates would be to lend support to the view that record labels should be treated, for Wikipedia's purposes, as businesses and nothing more. This sort of reasoning occasionally creeps up in deletion discussions - that record labels are to be judged as corporations and not as publishers of artistic works (and thus whether the standards set by Wikipedia's business experts or music experts ought to decide their fate). Infobox record label directs the user to WikiProject Music, and this is exactly where they should be directed. Publishers of written works of art have a template, which is Infobox Publisher; this is the proper analogue for musical recordings, and there are fields that might profitably be added to Infobox Record Label that wouldn't make sense to include in Infobox Company, such as release format and imprints/sublabels.
Chubbles (
talk)
00:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is -- what a template's called has no bearing on articles. {{ Infobox company}} is, despite the name, a perfect substitute. I think the most appropriate thing to do is to redirect this tpl to {{ Infobox company}} (and add any missing fields or any aliases for existing fields there). — lfdder 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- While wanting to avoid "lending support to a view" is not a reason to keep a template; that concern is easily addressed by keeping the current name as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Very useful infobox, this nomination is completely absurd. Koala15 ( talk) 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Andy, you have a potentially workable idea above, at first glance I like it. However, a some fields need to be added to the Record Labels infobox, the most glaring is "issued formats" (as pointed out by @
Chubbles:) which really doesn't fit "companies", but is specific to a record label. I suppose this field could be added to companies, but then I again question how much industry-specific information we want in a generic infobox.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
18:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- That, along with subsidiaries, imprints and a few others that would be enough to keep it at its own template in the end.
STATic
message me!
19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox company}}already has|subsid=and Ilm about to add|brands=, which should suffice for imprints. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we need
|issued formats=; we'd say that a bakery made bread, we wouldn't bother to list the types and sizes of loaves, or whether they also made buns. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- That, along with subsidiaries, imprints and a few others that would be enough to keep it at its own template in the end.
STATic
message me!
19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Andy, you have a potentially workable idea above, at first glance I like it. However, a some fields need to be added to the Record Labels infobox, the most glaring is "issued formats" (as pointed out by @
Chubbles:) which really doesn't fit "companies", but is specific to a record label. I suppose this field could be added to companies, but then I again question how much industry-specific information we want in a generic infobox.
78.26 (
I'm no IP, talk to me!)
18:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- rewrite as a wrapper for {{ infobox company}}. Frietjes ( talk) 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I think the record label infobox helps to expand the Music WikiProject, but I think it could do with more tags that help identify and distinguish it as a record label. Nevertheless I believe that this infobox should be kept. Arun Sunner, You want to fill up MY inbox, do you?! 18:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep L337p4wn Talk to me! 05:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. makes more sense to me to improve the record label template (maybe add a "notable artists" list, or a CEO line, or an "awards" section or something), instead of destroying it. Also, the "active or inactive" line is very useful, and I don't remember seeing that line on non-label company infoboxes.
Earflaps (
talk)
13:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox company}}already has|key_people=for CEOs. You're fishing for properties in order to keep a template, which it has never needed previously. Talk of destruction is alarmist hyperbole. There will still be an adequate template, to display the same information in all the affected articles, even if this template is redirected or deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Earflaps. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a fucking WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Saying "speedy" doesn't make your keep "vote" any speedier. — lfdder 04:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep and as Frietjes suggested, make it a wrapper for the suggested template after it's been updated. Not a redirect to it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:50, 19 April 2014 (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.