Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Template:Quidditch player infobox / Template:St Mungo's permanent patient infobox
Individual infoboxes are supposed to show affiliation of a certain character to a certain organisation/house/species, not to show occupation. I remember this was the reason the old "Minister for Magic" infobox was deleted. Either way, keeping the "Quidditch player infobox" creates a precedent: next thing we know, there'll be infoboxes for "Authors", "Innkeepers", "Magizoologists" or "O.W.L. examiners", showing no affiliation whatsoever. The same thing goes for the "St Mungo's permanent patient infobox": infoboxes are not supposed to show current character statuses; if that was the case, we'd have infoboxes for "Dead people", "Amputees" or "Ill individuals", which would be preposterous. I ask for the deletion of both. --15:48, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed about the St. Mungo's one, but Quidditch is a fairly large part of the wizarding world. If we delete infoboxes based on not being for occupations, then we have to get rid of the Minsitry of Magic, Hogwarts staff, Daily Prophet, and St. Mungo's employee infoboxes. I think "professional Quidditch team(s)" is as valid as an organisation to show affiliation for as any of those, even if it's technically multiple organisations. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 19:06, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Arguably, "Ministry of Magic", "Hogwarts staff", "Daily Prophet" and "St. Mungo's employee" also show affiliation and not occupation (although, I must admit, "Hogwarts staff" and "St. Mungo's employee" should be renamed simply "Hogwarts" and "St. Mungo's"). And if we keep the professional Quidditch player infobox, we must definitely change its colour scheme (a personal pet peeve, I admit; the current one seems to be a "Squib infobox", as it mixes both "Wizards" and "Muggles" colours), but to what? -- 19:25, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
All these messages are from 2012, nearly 2 years ago. No one seems to be interested in this matter. What does that mean? Deletion or not deletion?19:37, July 15, 2014 (UTC)
Why should this be deleted? It's not impossible that one of the characters get a name and/or a biography. There could be other for now unreleased scripts where they are mentioned. And there is Pottermore who could give one of them a name and/or a biography. When that is the case this character would get article-worthy. So I think such a template would be a good suggestion.19:20, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
- It was randomly created and (attempted to be) implemented without any discussion that I'm aware of. The creation of a template like this should be discussed by the community first, so I flagged it for deletion as trying to circumvent that process. Of course, I suppose we can discuss its merits now. I don't personally have much of an opinion on it, but on the whole I think its unneeded. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 19:35, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
- O. k., I can understand you. It would have been better he / she had asked an admin before or made a forum about this question. But I think there are other templates like this, see Conjecture for example. So why not? I think you think it's unneeded because with new infos the article would automatically be created, do you? 20:02, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
O.K. My bad... I forgot to create a discussion, I'm very sorry. But I can read that 'Harry granger' actually protects this template. And he even has a point, and I'm not saying this because I want it to stay. But I know I should have made a discussion. Again, I'm very sorry. --126.96.36.199 20:46, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
- @188.8.131.52 You are new here, do you? Don't worry, everyone makes mistakes, especially when you are new on a Wiki, but all mistakes can be corrected. And perhaps we can now on this discussion page solve the question. 20:55, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
- 184.108.40.206, I presume you are the same person as 220.127.116.11, who created the template? Discussion before creating would be preferred, and it is standard proceedure.
- That being said, I don't have much of an opinion on the template. Now that all the films were released, I sincerely doubt that any of those characters will ever be referred to again, even less identified. I, however, wouldn't oppose a similar template to identify all "List" articles that we currently have (and that will, as it seems, be created in the near future). -- 21:36, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
- Such a list I would appreciate. It would make finding things much easier. 21:46, August 4, 2012 (UTC)