Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 10

< March 9	March 11 >

March 10 edit

Template:Pokefilm 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 Mart inp23 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial, inappropriate template that provides very little space for encyclopedic detail. Articles should contain prose, not a box for entering information (and, infoboxes don't cover information so trivial either). — T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and possibly create article about Pokemon movies in general, and put a table in it similar to the one at Recurring themes in A Series of Unfortunate Events. Gracenotes ^T § 04:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really can't say it any better than the nom. Useless, inappropriate. Vassyana 10:28, 17 March 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:Zelda weapons and items 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 Mart inp23 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template with only two entries. Not useful. — Pagra shtak 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Deckill er 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (although it has more than two, four isn't enough). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expanded. -23_PatPeter*∞ 02:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no way to expand, outside of creating new articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could use # to designate specific sections for a link to go, and you could expand it, it does not have weapons and items from Ocarina of Time. -23_PatPeter*∞ 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is fairly useful. Mike92591 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if there were more articles. Four links does NOT warrant assistance in navigation outside of a category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to expand is to create new articles, and these articles are unencyclopedic and in need of a transwiki to begin with (except the Triforce and maybe the Master Sword). — Deckill er 16:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hope that the closing admin realizes that it's just too short and has little potential for growth instead of focusing on that half of the votes are keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in this case, "See also" links might work fine, or otherwise, something more appropriately contextual. Gracenotes ^T § 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. >Radiant< 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into (an)other Zelda template(s). —davidh.oz.au 00:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ Just clarifying, that merge should read as a delete. —davidh.oz.au 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful. Little, if any, room for expansion. Vassyana 10:27, 17 March 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:Final Fantasy bestiary 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 Mart inp23 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not used, and is not necessary with the current state of the Creatures of Final Fantasy article. — Kariteh 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. — Deckill er 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: once again, nav template that does little navigation. Gracenotes ^T § 19:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't feel like a cross-namespace redirect to Creatures of Final Fantasy would be especially helpful either. Axem Titanium 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and not necessary due to Creatures of Final Fantasy. Vassyana 10:26, 17 March 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:"Summer Camp" 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 deleted by Grandmasterka. —dgies^t_c 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have a template for creating a redirect? ><RichardΩ6 12 13:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was originally someone creating an article in Template: space, so I moved it to mainspace, leaving this behind. Should probably have tagged it then... —dgies^t_c 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is now a template for creating a double redirect. Not that we need one to create a redirect. Phatom87 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Ellie 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 per CSD G4. IronGargoyle 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated something like this before [and it was deleted], but it has come back. This is nonsense, but not quite CSD G2. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4 (recreated of deleted material) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:25, 10 March 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 page.

Template:Strike 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 Mart inp23 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needless duplication of Wiki markup, not in substantial use. Sandstein 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I disagree with the logic that {{Strike|text}} looks cleaner in wikitext than <s>text</s>, except that the brackets are curlier, which some may argue is more aesthetically pleasing. Gracenotes ^T § 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to wikimarkup. —dima/s-ko/ 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- redundant to wikimarkup, and is needless. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely useless. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant and useless. Vassyana 10:25, 17 March 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:User MaristC and Template:User MaristO 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 no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant to the already existing {{User Marist Brothers}}. --evrik ^(talk) 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are over 50 schools run by the Marist Brothers, {{Marist Brothers}} has no point to it, it doesn't tell anything about the user. -23_PatPeter*∞ 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have combined these two TFDs into one, given the identical discussions and similar nature of the templates. No need for multiposting. Gracenotes ^T § 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not necessary to have a template denoting a specific high school alumni status. We don't have templates for the other 48 Marist Brothers schools, nor do we have them for the other 8 bazillion high schools in the world. Axem Titanium 04:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose your vote - 1) There are only six billion people in the world. Of these six billion each high school supports approximately 2000 students, thus giving an estimated 3000000 high schools, but this includes the countries that do not have high schools or standardized education systems, so your assumption on "nor do we have them for the other 8 bazillion high schools in the world" is false. 2) I have been working on templates for each Marist school, but I brought that to a halt as I need to protect these templates. -23_PatPeter*∞ 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, Axem, we do have them -- Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States/High Schools, plus more for other countries. Maybe there aren't "8 bazillion", but enough to make a category of userboxes for them. As to it being redundant to {{User Marist Brothers}}, if I went to one of those high schools, I would identify with that high school, not the people who run them. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. -23_PatPeter*∞ 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The templates are not redundant, but a subset. They do not target too small an amount of people, and multiple editors are using them. –Pomte 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you again. -23_PatPeter*∞ 21:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templates are redundant and overly specific. Vassyana 10:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose your vote - you do not specify how they are redundant and they are not overly specific as they pertain to a good enough amount of people. -23_PatPeter*∞ 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly specific. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS and delete after all transclusions/links updated. —dgies^t_c 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, every single placement of these userboxes was made by User:PatPeter, even to other people's userpages. It would appear he's the only person who uses it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:40, 19 March 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:Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1950-1969 et al 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 all. Harryboyles 09:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on WP:F1 resolved to replace the use of partial lists with the full list. The only remaining links to these templates are from each other, plus a few talk and user pages. --DH85868993 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Deprecated in favor of Template:Formula One World Drivers' Champions, which really should have been mentioned above. —dgies^t_c 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deprecated, no transclusions. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:37, 19 March 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:Cite science 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 withdrawn, surrounding issues still being sorted out elsewhere. Opabinia regalis 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Cite journal}} (the documentation specifically refers to {{Cite journal}} too). This template is only used in a few articles, which I'm in the process of replacing, so this template can be deleted. +mwtoews 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain until someone who uses it explains what it's supposed to do differently. -Amarkov moo! 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template does nothing special, and is nearly identical to {{cite journal}}+mwtoews 03:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well after taking a detailed look at the template history and code, it implements news and abstract parameters for a link to a related news article, and abstract url. In a case where both a science article and news article are referenced, both should have a full and proper citation. So use {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} (rather embedding a partial citation in another). Secondly, the abstract can be viewed by setting either the doi or the id to something useful, such as "id={{PMID}}". This will bring you to the official abstract for the publication, which is URL neutral (will always link). These are very minor changes to {{cite journal}}, and I always discourage subtle forks, such as this.+mwtoews 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect (completed) – I've replaced the occurrences of this template (there were about 20) with the appropriate citation template, which 9/10 times was {{cite journal}}. This template is now a redirect to {{cite journal}}. +mwtoews 03:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valuable for science citations. Btw, you can't just nominate something, not wait for discussion and then do to it what you voted. That's not the way tfd is run. pschemp | talk 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite journal}} is valuable for science citations, and sorry for moving too quickly — It now no longer links to any articles as I've fixed their use, and it is fairly obvious what is going on here to users whom use {{cite journal}} on a regular basis. +mwtoews 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you show you are sorry, and do the right thing and revert your changes? There was not consensus for those. Besides, it doesn't link to anything because *you* removed all the links. This is not how a community works. pschemp | talk 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am a bit sorry for confusing folks reading this (I should have discussed this with User:Samsara beforehand), and the template is back to what it was before (it was briefly a redirect). We can continue discussing this template in a formal matter now, but my position is still a redirect/delete, as it isn't really being used on any article and I highly dislike forks of popular templates (which is the {{cite journal}} template). As for the changes to the 20 or so citations in articles — sorry, those changes are sticking. I provided several of these with {{PMID}} and {{DOI}} info, where available (this provides a link to official abstract, publisher, pdf, etc.); and split any news url tags into a separate and proper citation (e.g., using {{cite news}}).+mwtoews 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read any of my comments? Did they make sense? Because I've tried to explain to you the reason why this template exists, and it doesn't seem to have been getting through to you. The fork was caused by resistance to expanding {{cite journal}}, which was my original proposal. Where were you to support that proposal when it happened? Second, your proposal to use a combination of two templates does not simplify things in the least. There is a reason why separate templates exist for separate purposes, otherwise everything would be one mega-template, and the documentation would be so immense that we might as well not bother having templates at all. Not to mention the fact that having two templates flies in the face of everything we have learnt since Wittgenstein about object-oriented ways of interacting with our environment. So, please. {{cite journal}} has been amended to this effect, but if we're going to have this TfD at all, it should remain open until it is clear whether there is going to be a backlash from the retainers of {{cite journal}}. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the TfD tag for now to review the proposal in a bit more detail. In the future, try to make it clear in the template what the purpose is, and other important details that people like myself should know (and yes, I'll try to do some more detective work before making any rouge moves). Lets close this discussion for now.+mwtoews 07:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've now essentially closed this TfD out of process TWICE. Can someone please close this as "withdrawn" or something before we all start flying off the walls? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does not seem to be a consensus to delete unless other matters are rectified per Samsara (who I think has raised some fair points. More a "process keep" vote from me than an actual opinion on the subject matter. Orderinchaos78 13:46, 10 March 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 page.

Template:November deprecated Vandalism 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 Mart inp23 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template with suitable replacement, no significant incoming links ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect along with all of the other deprecated templates listed here. John Reaves (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G3-Pure vandalism.Hondasaregood 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delte no longer needed. (please take note what the template actually says)Charon X/talk 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not vandalism, deprecated/unused. —dgies^t_c 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Phatom87 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 03:03, 12 March 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.