List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Individual Yearly NavBox templates
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.
Per reasons 2 and 3 listed at WP:TFD, these templates should be deleted. ProtectorServant (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, better covered by a category and/or succession boxes and/or a multipage toc. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Replaced by a better template. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2015 (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.
Keep - ((Infobox episode)) is a redirect. I think you mean ((Infobox television episode)), which does not contain a number of parameters that are included in ((Infobox Paris by Night)). These parameters are "executive" (not the same or substitutable by "producer"), mc, filmedat, filmedon, venue and format. This means that the template is NOT redundant to ((Infobox television episode)) at all. WP:TV is currently in the early stages of revamping all related infoboxes, but I cannot see any of the parameters listed being included in Infobox television episode, which is used in over 8,500 articles. These parameters are only applicable to 38 articles and there simply isn't justification to include such low-use parameters. However, it does seem reasonable to use them for Paris by Night, so a separate infobox seems warranted. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|filedat= and |venue= should be one parameter; and could legitimately be added to ((Infobox television episode)); as could |filmedon=, albeit with a better name. ((Para|executive} does indeed seem to be the same as |producer=; the vanity of those holding the title aside, but it's hard to tell, as the template is not documented and the label not linked. |mc= is replaceable using |presenter=. |format= seems simply superfluous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could merge with ((Infobox television)), which is only lacking |filmedon=. These shows aren't part of a series, so they don't fit the episode infobox very well. Alakzi (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we combine parameters, those in this infobox are used in only 38 articles, out of 8,572 articles using the two infoboxes, so there's very little justification for including them in Infobox television episode. Executive producers (executive) and producers (producer) are two different things and are treated differently across the TV project so using one for the other definitely isn't appropriate. It would lead to infoboxes being filled with names, as there are very few EPs and lots of Ps. I do have to agree on format. It's not a parameter at all, it's hardcoded into the template. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The justification is that they will apply to far more than just those 38 articles; hence my use of the phrase "could legitimately be added". If the producer fields are that different, then the same applies there also; however, I note that Television producer says that one is just a "type" or the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis for the claim that "they will apply to far more than just those 38 articles"? If they did don't you think they would have been added by now? Clearly, we've seen no need up to this point. I don't see you editing TV articles much, so I suspect your misinterpretation of Television producer is based on lack of experience in that area. That article clearly demonstrates the difference between EP and other types of producer. Executive producer even has its own article. You simply can't replace one with the other. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If they did don't you think they would have been added by now?". No. And your reverse appeal-to-authority is simultaneously ad hominem, irrelevant, and wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Classic Andy. Attack rather than answer the question. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment - (I don't edit TV articles much and don't understand:) IF there is this difference between EP and P, I am truly surprised that it comes into play in no more articles than these 38. It doesn't hurt to add a parameter to a general infobox. It does not have to be filled, and certainly not with all people, only with relevant ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EPs aren't really something that is uniquely significant to most episodes. EPs are more significant in the main series article. Typically EPs are EPs for the whole series run, or several seasons, while writers, directors and producers generally vary from episode to episode. That means we don't generally need to address EPs in episode articles. We have to be careful about adding parameters to TV infoboxes. They seem to be more subject to abuse than other infoboxes, like ((Infobox settlement)) for example. I still regularly have to remove attempts to colourise infoboxes even though the parameters were removed some time ago, remove |location= which is often used incorrectly and so on. TV articles are regularly edited by casual fans or kids who don't understand, or want to understand, the MOS or policies and guidelines. We need to ensure that TV related infoboxes are fit for the specific purposes, which is why we have different infoboxes for main, season and episode articles, and why some shows have specific infoboxes. Merging them just cause extra trouble for the people who try to ensure articles meet Wikipedia standards. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me further understand by comparing to something I know. A separate infobox for a single series looks like instead of ((infobox opera)), have a separate one for the works of one composer? (... which Would not make much sense to me.) Couldn't the EPs be dropped for this single series also? Or mentioned differently, such as with P but marked "EP"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't seem a valid comparison. A television series consists of a number of episodes. The main article uses Infobox television, while articles for individual episodes use Infobox television episode. Infobox television contains information that is relevant to the episodes as a group, while Infobox television episode contains information specific to individual episodes. Trying to relate this to operas and composers, Infobox television would be best described as the infobox to be used for the composer, and Infobox television episode would be the infobox used for individual operas. That said, it really is a poor comparison. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with ((Infobox television)), after having added a filming dates parameter to it, per my comment above. Alakzi (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a worse idea than replacing it with Infobox television episode. Adding a parameter to an infobox used in 32,553 articles to cater for a mere 38 is not appropriate. Parameters should be used by a significant number of articles. Filming dates are rarely sourced. It's an invitation to add OR to articles. There's also the fact that Infobox television is meant for main series articles, not for individual episodes. We have Infobox television episode for episode articles. Having some episodes use Infobox television and some use Infobox television episode doesn't makle a lot of sense at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are not conventional episodes. Filming dates are relevant to live shows broadcast at a later date, and could - potentially - be used by many more articles. If the concern's that it'll be used indiscriminately by newbies, simply do not list the parameter in the syntax for copying. Alakzi (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're still individual episodes of a series that has its own main article which is, not surprisingly, titled Paris By Night, as well as having a list of episodes at List of Paris by Night episodes. They should therefore be using an episode infobox, not an infobox meant for main series articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do one-off TV shows use, or should use, the TV box? Is the original filming date of live TV shows broadcast at a later date a key fact? If the answer to both of these is yes, then the addition of this new parameter would be sensible. On another note, we've probably introduced ambiguity by renaming the "Broadcast" heading to "Release", as it might be confused with home release in some instances. Alakzi (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a simplistic approach. These are not one-off episodes. They are episodes of a popular Vietnamese-language musical variety show, produced by Thúy Nga and hosted by Nguyễn Ngọc Ngạn and Nguyễn Cao Kỳ Duyên, featuring musical performances by modern pop stars, traditional folk songs, one-act plays, and sketch comedy. There are many similar programs, that have "one-off episodes" and the episodes, where they have articles, use Infobox television episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pragmatic approach: let's use the TV infobox for the outliers, which require the TV infobox's higher-order parameters, and keep the episode infobox lean, to provide only for episodes in a season. Alakzi (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have specific infoboxes for specific purposes. Main series articles use Infobox television, episodes use Infobox television episode. We shouldn't be introducing inconsistencies in the way we use them. What's next, us Infobox road for cities? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate the hierarchical angle, but Paris by Night episodes are treated more like one-offs than regular episodes; the TV infobox should cater for one-off shows. Perhaps that is the wrong approach to Paris by Night, but - given the circumstances - I do not believe that flooding the episode infobox with overlapping parameters would be prudent. If we can't agree on using ((Infobox television)), then I'd prefer if ((Infobox Paris by Night)) were kept. Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do we have other special TV shows with multiple "episodes" (not mini-series)? If so, how do we handle them?--Gonnym (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do, and we use the hierarchy. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. could see merging this, but this isn't a merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if this helps inform any decisions, but in TV a producer is typically a "line producer" or the person who's responsible for (and this will vary) organizing budget, filming locations, staffing new hires, coordinating locations, organizing payroll, making sure the production conforms to union rules, and things of that nature. Sometimes they are the ones funding the series. Executive producers (generally speaking) are in charge of the creative aspects of the show. In Animation, for instance, you might have an Executive producer who is in charge of all the visual, artistic elements, character design, etc. and then you might have an EP who is in charge of all the writing staff, and who may be called a "showrunner". Sometimes people get Executive Producer credits, but don't actually do anything. Celebrities sometimes wind up with these vanity titles. Please note that I'm speaking generally, and there is probably a lot of gray area all over my statement. Executive Producer should not be confused with Executive in Charge of Production, as these are typically network suits who oversee the entirety of the production. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would like to add to this - In American TV shows, a Showrunner (the highest credit of a TV show) is an Executive producer, but not all of the Executive producers are showrunners. However, in American film the Producer is higher than the Executive Producer in the credits. In Israel TV shows, a Producer is similar to American EP, while the Israeli EP is similar to the American Producer. Very confusing. In short: different credits. Regarding this issue though, I'm not a fan of show-specific templates, but this should not be merged in the top level template as it seems to be more of an episode.--Gonnym (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be mentioned that, shortly before this nomination, the TV project started looking at revamping infobox television season, with the aim of removing redundancy and making the TV infoboxes more consistent with each other. Once that is completed we will move onto infobox television episode. It's likely that many of the TV infoboxes will be updated and reworked so that they can be embedded in the main infoboxes, rather than remain as entirely separate infoboxes. This decision to use a modular approach was actually due to an edit made by Pigsonthewing to infobox television episode.[1] It will allow us to keep the main parameters consistent, while still allowing the flexibility to add "special" parameters for shows such as Paris By Night as needed, without bloating templates with parameters that should only be used in a few articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:43, 13 May 2015 (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:Transportation in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
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.
Template is not used in any articles. In addition, past precedent has called for by-county road templates to be deleted as categories better handle the need. Dough4872 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per county route navboxen precedent. VC 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. --Rschen7754 13:30, 8 May 2015 (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.