Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6 edit

Template:Premature Edit 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-wiki, by telling people not to edit, unencyclopaedic tone, and unused. —-Rory096 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this may result out of a recent dispute with updating things such as sports scores in real time during a game, resulting in (reputedly) hundreds of edits in just a few hours, making searching for vandalism edits difficult. "Orphaned" isn't a valid argument for this template, as it would only be applied during an event. -N 00:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templates which are visible like this should not say "DON'T EDIT!" In addition, this currently implies that absolutely no editing is allowed until the event is over, which is wrong. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is ridiculous. Get rid of it. Yechiel Man 05:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, request page protection if an article should not be edited (and if you do so for this reason, expect your request to be denied) >Radiant< 09:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of "anyone may edit" Wikipedia declaration by Jimbo (just to make it clear my comment was not an endorsement of the template). -N 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not helpful, people will always edit article with or without waring. Carlosguitar 10:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too bitey and confrontational for wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that a biting statement there. --Haemo 07:21, 11 June 2007 (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:Infobox OrigDam 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Harryboyles 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary fix, no longer used. Creator agrees, at User talk:LymanSchool#Infobox OrigDam. — Andy Mabbett 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SNOW applies.
Delete the creator, LymanSchool, agrees. The responses are here and here. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if WP:CSD#G7 is applicable. If not so delete per nom. Carlosguitar 10:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've put it up for speedy deletion. Evilclown93 20:15, 7 June 2007 (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 Gathering templates 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused templates which seem to not have been modified since the date of their creation nearly 2 months ago. —- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is a pretty much single-use template (for two articles), and since it is not in use, I fully endorse the deletion. Evilclown93 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Delete Single use templates thats not in use should be deleted. Urdna 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no articles for individual gatherings. And the templates appear to be some abandoned effort. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:49, 7 June 2007 (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:LongSynopsis 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and probably good that it isn't. It can't be good to have two synopses written in one article. — fuzzy510 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of synopses or abstracts. If somethings get too long, there is a proper way to fork another article. If we allow this template to stay, then what's next? History of someCountry and Economy of someCountry would be imported on the country article with a collapsible button. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused and a bad idea. Kusma (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is not in use and because the quality of it is not overly good.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't feel much use for the tempalte. Evilclown93 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WikiProject Films opted for word count limits for plot summaries. --PhantomS 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:03, 11 June 2007 (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:Brokeback Mountain 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Templates like this are the purpose for templates... Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On its own, it may be fine, but as a matter of precedent I'd think that we can't have templates created for individual movies simply because of how excessive it could get. — fuzzy510 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's separated pages for the 2 lead characters, a short story, a soundtrack, parodies, critical reception --SuperHotWiki 06:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at Template:Matrix, I found this pattern of transclusion

Articles that cannot exist without the Matrix series transclude the template (e.g. the 3 movies, the characters)
Articles that can exist without the Matrix series do not transclude the template (e.g. the actors)

And the template in question seems to follow this pattern too. It has been transcluded by a handful of articles. If I'm interested in a character of a movie, I would probably be interested in other characters and the director too. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a useful navigational grouping of the actors etc. Kusma (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any good reason to delete this template.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, and also it serves a useful purpose becuase there are quite a bit of articles related to the main article. Evilclown93 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to list this earlier - there was a similar case with another template here which ended up being deleted. --fuzzy510 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ludicrous. Particularly offensive is its inclusion on Annie Proulx, suggesting, bizarrely, that she is somehow peripheral to the subject and that the fact that a movie was made of her short story is somehow more important than her Pulitzer and National Book Award. Phil Sandifer 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It implies nothing of the sort... the template isn't on her article. (since this edite) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. it was a serious undue weight problem. Phil Sandifer 16:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I don't think that's something that should be treated as a problem with the template itself, just a problem with its usage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I count 7 articles directly related to Brokeback Mountain (1. Brokeback Mountain 2. Brokeback Mountain (short story) 3. Brokeback Mountain parodies 4. Brokeback Mountain (soundtrack) 5. Critical reception of Brokeback Mountain 6. Ennis Del Mar 7 Jack Twist). Quantitatively, this seems to be enough to make a navigational template worthwhile. Gracenotes^T § 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a very helpful template, regardless of related pages.--Piemanmoo 03:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - borderline large enough to need a nav template. --Haemo 07:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Periodically check if the template is limited to being transcluded on the 7 pages listed above and A Love That Will Never Grow Old. –Pomte 09:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --DrBat 20:09, 13 June 2007 (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.