From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 13

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Underlying award was determined to be non-notable and deleted. In any event, there's no need for a 2-entry template. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 23:05, 13 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The template, which has only 19 transclusions, is now a wrapper for {{ Infobox character}}, with no loss of functionality. However, deleting it and replacing instances with the latter template will make more parameters available, as requested on this template's talk page. The nominated template's two unique parameters, |official title= and |classification=, could be added to the other template, rather than using its free parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

|official title= seems to be rarely used (and can be accommodated by |alias= or a custom field), and the contents of |classification= can go to |species= or a custom field. I'd volunteer to complete the conversions when this goes through.— TAnthony Talk 21:30, 19 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 September 22 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 02:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

No cast and crew in navboxes. Fails WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:01, 13 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

As per "no cast and crew in navboxes" consensus, I am nominating this template for deletion as it is only populated by cast members. 6ii9 ( talk) 12:38, 13 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

No article, no links. Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:44, 13 September 2016 (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).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 13

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Underlying award was determined to be non-notable and deleted. In any event, there's no need for a 2-entry template. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 23:05, 13 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The template, which has only 19 transclusions, is now a wrapper for {{ Infobox character}}, with no loss of functionality. However, deleting it and replacing instances with the latter template will make more parameters available, as requested on this template's talk page. The nominated template's two unique parameters, |official title= and |classification=, could be added to the other template, rather than using its free parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC) reply

|official title= seems to be rarely used (and can be accommodated by |alias= or a custom field), and the contents of |classification= can go to |species= or a custom field. I'd volunteer to complete the conversions when this goes through.— TAnthony Talk 21:30, 19 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 September 22 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 02:00, 22 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 02:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

No cast and crew in navboxes. Fails WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:01, 13 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

As per "no cast and crew in navboxes" consensus, I am nominating this template for deletion as it is only populated by cast members. 6ii9 ( talk) 12:38, 13 September 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

No article, no links. Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:44, 13 September 2016 (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).

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook