Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2

[edit]
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 debate was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Johnny Test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Cast templates seem to be discouraged, especially given that none of the cast is primarily associated with this show. Remove the cast and you have just the creator and list of episodes, as the page on Johnny himself was redirected. Not enough for a template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK school2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Appears to be a user test.

Template:Infobox UK person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redirects to the above.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:27, 2 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kill Bill character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SVU Season 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All but one two SVU episode articles have been merged/redirected/deleted per lack of demonstated/demonstratable notability in the past two months. The season-specific templates are just redundant now, as the season pages already list the names of the episodes. Also included in this nom are

sgeureka tc 17:06, 2 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was speedy keep per the snowball clause. As a note: inappropriate use of a template doesn't inherently warrant its deletion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smallcaps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Re-nominating: previous nom was here, and was closed early due to a now-corrected technicality. This purely-presentational template is purportedly for "name/surname disambiguation in lead sections, and all-caps words or pronounceable acronyms", but none of those require small caps and in few cases would it seem to be desirable. We shouldn't encourage users to experiment with presentational markup like this by having templates for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 2 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was keep --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

90% of content already in Template:Campaignbox India terrorism, also article Terrorism in Mumbai is enough. TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process comment Shouldn't a "TfD" notification template be put on the template itself? Since I oppose the deletion and created the template, I am conflicted on doing this, but I think there should be a time extension on the deletion until this is done. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see history of the template--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom--Adrian 1001 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template is useful to connect the historic occurrence of terrorism in Mumbai and as a substitute for "See Also" material in the related articles (so that when there are updates we have a central place instead of having to go to each article). While some content (not 90%) is also covered in the India campaingbox, the India campaign box is limited to actions after 2001. I feel a localized template was warranted. Furthermore, I opened a discussion topic on the page of November 2008 Mumbai attacks (the latest attacks), so I feel that a TfD is a bit premature and harsh (to the content - don't worry, I am not taking it personal ;-), perhaps letting the community express itself outside of process would have been more useful than opening a deletion discussion right away. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - despite the fact that all the links in this template are already included in {{Campaignbox India terrorism}}, I think it is actually useful in its own right, as it singles out the attacks in Mumbai. Perhaps most preferable would be to separate the attacks in the 'India terrorism' box by location, which would remove the need for this template - but if that one remains as it is, this one seems worth keeping as a Mumbai-focused alternative. Terraxos (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It serves a useful purpose for a narrative. The only issue is whether it is duplicative of the other infobox. It might be nice if there were other "submenu" templates for, say, Delhi, or other geographic areas of India particularly affected by multiple attacks. So it was part of a pattern of information presentation, and not a singular exception. Make sense? --Petercorless (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cerejota and Terraxos. The nomination doesn't seem to have any reasons why it shouldn't exist, as we're replete with redundant navboxes and navbox-like things. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terrorism in Mumbai does have its own unique components as compared to Terrorism in India, the template serves a useful purpose (the fact that it includes pre-2001 incidents is important. Kaushik twin (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC) This navigating template makes no sense, because already there is "Terrorism in" in general template for Asia (Template:Asia in topic): Template:Asia in topic. Including those six countries. --91.77.93.43 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stan Lee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too broad a template, and hardly links anywhere on Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought I was making a useful template. *sigh* Just delete it, don't really care. J U M P G U R U ask㋐㋜㋗ 18:53, 1 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney image with region labels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I had already typed a long winded reason but the thingy I use for XfD screwed up and lost it. I was saying how the template mixes esoteric definitions with ubiquitous ones (eg. St. George with Eastern Suburbs. Just because it has a wiki article doesn't mean it is an accepted or even known definition), how it changed the area of Eastern Suburbs to exclude Bondi Beach and something called 'South-eastern Sydney', while it is interesting Bondi Beach gets its own region (equal in status to North Shore, Western Sydney...) I frankly haven't got a clue what SE Sydney is or when I moved there. I think there are serious problems with maintaining this template given its arbitrary current state, not to mention the lack of a ubiquitous definition of regions for Sydney. This is an edit war waiting to happen. Another point is its lack of usefulness, the only people to whom this would be of any benefit would be people already familiar with Sydney's geography, since the map is hard to place and confusing. This purpose would be far better served with individual maps on individual articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I created this template to reduce redundancy in the Sydney articles. Rather than deleting the maps, we should be correcting the labels to make them more consistent with reality. The template provides a centralised place where these labels can be updated. Without the template, we're going to end up with separate maps being maintained in different places. Perhaps a good place to start looking for labels to use in the improved template would be Regions of Sydney. I unfortunately don't have the time to improve the template at the moment, but to delete it would reduce the quality of the articles that use it, and negatively impact the maintainability of articles covering those regions. -- Mark Chovain 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should note you are the template's creator, no? The template is incorrect, and given the fluidity of the definitions in question, unmaintainable. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to be rude, but did you miss the bit at the start where I said, "I created this template ..."? It is far easier to maintain this in one place than in a dozen. -- Mark Chovain 07:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eep, my apologies. I have a tendency to read too fast and miss details, didn't notice it. I was rather surprised to see you seemingly omit the part, which is why I felt I should note it. Again, my apologies. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no problem. But I should clarify: I created the template, but not the content. As shown in the History, I excised it from one of the regional articles, then replaced it in all the others. -- Mark Chovain 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mark Chovain. Mark may be the creator, but he is right. Just because the template had one incorrect area doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and delete it altogether. It serves a useful purpose showing vaguely where particular identified areas of Sydney are. The other terms "St George", "Eastern Suburbs", "North Shore", "Northern Suburbs", etc. are in common parlance in Sydney, and yes they do overlap - but that's not a reason to delete it. There is an article somewhere that explains what the regions are. Like Mark, I believe we should improve the template, not simply get rid of it. It is certainly not "unmaintanable". INTGAFW (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I consider my eyesight to be quite good, but could hardly make head nor tail of the overhead – in short, it is awful, completely meaningless. A simple map (with boundaries?) rather than a satellite image would be a great improvement, and vastly improve its usefulness. bigissue (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no boundaries - the terms do not represent a precise geographical area (unlike suburbs). The areas of Sydney described, apart from the one complained about above (which can easily be deleted) are commonly used and there are sources for them if you want to find them. INTGAFW (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Orderinchaos, apart from "South East Sydney", of those terms are in common parlance in Sydney and are not original research. The areas themselves are not precisely defined but as they only indicate a general area, they are fine in the form that they are in. This image is really helpful and needs to be kept (but can be improved). INTGAFW (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've seen reason's why this template should be improved, but no reasons why it should be deleted. If people want it improved, then they should go ahead and improve it. It's not perfect, but it fills a role, and is better than nothing. -- Mark Chovain 08:06, 2 December 2008 (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.

The result of the debate was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Santa Clause (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with only three links. Each film already links to the other. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (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.