Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 12: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:39, 20 November 2007

< November 11	November 13 >

November 12

Template:CREnumber

Delete. Non-notable catalog linkages. In addition, as the catalog numbers are not entirely numerical, "previous" and "next" links are meaningless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasons for deletion of {{FACnumber}} (TfD). "Articles on albums or songs, do not deal with a specific release, as many have multiple releases (and thus multiple catalog numbers). It is common to have separate releases for different countries, re-releases, alternate versions, and even releases under different record companies." These numbers are important (IMO), but it doesn't make sense to have templates like this. Rocket000 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobel Laureates by year, tributaries of the Danube in order, record label releases by release number all serve a very simple purpose: to allow for quick sequential navigation. And if you think nobody would want to browse Factory or Creation Record releases by release number, you can't possibly ever have listened to music. ~ trialsanderrors 10:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with trialsanderrors. Creaton is only second to Factory for notable cat # Doc Strange 14:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was never meant to be an exhaustive list of release numbers for a particular album. That is totally missing the point. Indeed some of the albums which were released in USA didn't have the Creation number anywhere in the article because the editor wasn't aware of it. I only found them because I was working through the albums in order (that is NUMERICAL order). Surely this is the kind of cross-referencing that makes WP NOT britannica. As to this being a marketing tool: first up... WTF? how many marketing men would waste their time with this BS. Secondly: that's an opinion!! Thirdly: Creation doesn't even exist any more, so what are we trying to sell? You deletionist timewasters certainly know how to put someone off ever touching wikipedia again. dyaimz 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Please explain how it is so encyclopedic to have links to sequential albums by a given artist but so unencyclopedic to have links to sequential albums released by a given label. Unencyclopedic is the new weasel word. It is the acceptable way for editors to say they don't like something. I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what the problem is here. Who exactly would be upset to see the previous/next release on a record label they are presumably already interested in as it released an album they are interested-in enough to read it's article.

This has nothing to do with notability. If the record label & associated album articles are not notable then that should be discussed at the relevant pages.

Let us not forget that this whole thing started with a delete request from Dreamwave444 whose only contribution to WP was that single request.

On the other hand "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template." I didn't get a notification.

dyaimz 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order: It's also considered inappropriate to use a template as your signature. See WP:SIGNATURE#Transclusion of templates.

Your argument on the other TfD (with result Deleted) suggests you had adequate notice; and I disagree that adding a related template during a TfD necessarily indicates good faith. I would like to assume good faith, but it did appear you were making a WP:POINT. Also, there was notice on the not-yet-closed previous TfD noted above. So, I have doubts that there was a good-faith creator to notify, and all appropriate parties were notified on the onther TfD.

A simple box without previous/next links would seem reasonable if it's a notable label, but the numbers aren't issued in release order. If the previous/next links were to be in release order by label, rather than number by label, that might be appropriate, although almost impossible to reference. If you want a box similar to the previous/next works by artist box, that would be what would be needed, and the release numbers should not appear in the box.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is an argument for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no Wikipedia-based argument presented for keeping the template. As I said, it might make sense without the previous/next links, but that could probably be handled by a general Record Label template. The correct discussion is whether there is a proper use of this template, in which case other arguments for deletion might be required. My previous essay was a point-by-point refutation of User:Dyaimz's "reasons" for keeping the template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's what you thought it was. I don't see anything that amounts to more than an argument for editing the template. Upmerging of course would be another alternative, but upmerging does not require deletion either. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WarcraftBBook

Superceded by combined template, {{Warcraft universe}}. The combined template should continue to shrink, as Warcraft articles are merged/deleted. Pagrashtak 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No longer needed. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Totally unneeded. Judgesurreal777 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WarcraftBLocation

Same as WarcraftBBook above. Pagrashtak 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Totally unneeded. Judgesurreal777 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WarcraftBOrganization

Same as WarcraftBBook above. Pagrashtak 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Totally unneeded and duplicative. Judgesurreal777 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WarcraftBRace

Same as WarcraftBBook above. Pagrashtak 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Totally unneeded. Judgesurreal777 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WarcraftBItem

Empty template. — Pagrashtak 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Totally unneeded. Judgesurreal777 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mobile Games

Completely unneeded and has a ridiculously large scope that only connects articles by a tangent. Template creating by a sock of an indef-blocked vandal account. — –– Lid^(Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steve Jobs

Template overkill that doesn't serve much of a navigation purpose. Out of the four articles that are directly about Steve Jobs, three -- Reality distortion field, Stevenote and Thoughts on Music -- have active merge proposals. The rest are about Jobs' business ventures or films in which he appears. This template is no more useful for navigation than the Steve Jobs article itself. szyslak 12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sly Cooper series

There is no need for this template. It has little navgational purpose and links three articles that are linked already by other methods. It is only used on 4 pages and is not helpful for navigation— Thundermaster367 09:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You never know what will happer and just because know one navigate the article doesn't mean to be deleted all we just need is more information on the 4 page article. The luigi kart assasions 6:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Berkail Team

This template is for a deleted band article, Berkail Team, and it has only redlinks. — TigerK 69 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template bleeding red. Doczilla 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the main page has been deleted and so have all the others. It also has spelling mistakes such as "Comming soon" and is a useless template. Thundermaster367 09:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redlinked to death. N.B. links to User:Berkail Team which looks like a cut & paste from the French Wiki.SkierRMH 02:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forrest Gump

Unnecessary anymore. Written By, Directed by, Cast, music, and other links all are linked to from the Forrest Gump (film) article (where they are relevant), and the Forrest Gump character article is already linked to from a multitude of articles, including both the film and character articles. The other character articles were either PRODed or merged, so it doesn't serve its purpose anymore.. Collectonian 05:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnecessary. JPG-GR 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 :::None of this is an argument for deletion. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] ([[User talk:Trialsanderrors|talk]]) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 ::::There has been no Wikipedia-based argument presented for '''keeping''' the template.  As I said, it might make sense ''without'' the previous/next links, but that could probably be handled by a general Record Label template.  The ''correct'' discussion is whether there is a proper use of this template, in which case other arguments for deletion might be required.  My previous essay was a point-by-point refutation of [[User:Dyaimz]]'s "reasons" for keeping the template.  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
+:::::Maybe that's what you thought it was. I don't see anything that amounts to more than an argument for editing the template. Upmerging of course would be another alternative, but upmerging does not require deletion either. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] ([[User talk:Trialsanderrors|talk]]) 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:WarcraftBBook]] ====