Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 19

< March 18	March 20 >

March 19 edit

Template:January 2007 deprecated time 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 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All have been deprecated since January and have a suitable m:ParserFunction replacement. All orphaned with no significant incoming links. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While templates like {{qif}} are important both historically and technically, this template is of no historical or technical interest to me, or probably anyone else. Gracenotes ^T § 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous comments. matt br 18:01, 20 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:EPL IP 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

{{SharedIPPublic}} will take care of this. We do not need specific templates for each ISP/Public terminal (perhaps with the exception of AOL). — Avi 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant and orphaned. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:48, 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:Super Mario cartoon navigation 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! 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was replaced by the navigation links in {{Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 episode}} and removed from all but one page. I removed it from the last page and TfD'ed --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - infobox subsumes the succession template. Gracenotes ^T § 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated/unused. –Pomte 04:43, 30 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:Desperate Housewives nav 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, unused. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template was deprecated and subsequently it's contents commented out, but not deleted. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 08:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to {{Desperate Housewives episode}} (no consensus on that one). –Pomte 06:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this should be deleted... it's not needed now, really. Gracenotes ^T § 17:11, 29 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:Bogota-localities 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. --ais523 15:33, 31 March 2007 (U T C)

Another template already exists. ((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 07:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Specify the other template please. Funpika 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it and I am intrested to know that the nominator is deleting this just to replace it with a template the nominator created. Funpika 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and edit Just edit the existing template, something the nominator should have done instead of TFDing it. Funpika 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think that the other template, Template:Bogota DC is worse than the one being nominated mostly. Funpika 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{Bogota-localities}} and delete {{Bogota DC}} instead. There is no need to sabotage an already existing template to serve the exact same function. Revert all edits in the transcluding articles. –Pomte 04:43, 30 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:Infobox Angel Television episode 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 (yes, I know I !voted, but I'm closing it in favor of consensus, plus I agree with them now, that we can just subst: this) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just an Infobox. It also standardizes the Lead in of the article, much like {{TVep}} does, but luckily it can be subst:. I don't like this kind of standardizing of a lead in, because it takes away creativity. I can see it being used as a "article structure template", but then it should always be subst: and it should be renamed to something that doesn't start with "Infobox". Ergo, I ask it to be subst: and deleted or else subst: and renamed and subst: required in the future --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't put actual article content into templates. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and keep as long as it is getting substituted and not transcluded in the episode articles. The template is still useful for substing because all episode lead-ins should be standardized. Why should there be any "creativity" with regards to this? In the case of a special episode that requires a lead-in that deviates from this format, then it is easy to subst this template and then make a simple modification to the content. –Pomte 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and keep - We don't need or want "creativity" in these article lead-ins. -- Paxomen 11:48, 31 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:Infobox Weeds episode 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! 07:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showspecific template replaced with {{Infobox Television episode}}. This is the first template for which I have kept on to the Season list as with the old template it replaces. However if preferred editors can quickly change this by simply removing the "Season list" option from the related Weeds episode pages. Note that this old style infobox also had the extra option "Theme song", which contents have been merged into the articles. The {{Infobox Weeds season episode list}} is no longer required in the new style, but the {{Infobox Weeds season 1 episode list}} and {{Infobox Weeds season 2 episode list}} are still used and therefore not up for deletion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love the show, delete. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Pomte 04:43, 30 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:Greencheckontopcornerforpol 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 author request (CSD G7). Jesse Viviano 06:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used to place a green checkmark in the topcorner of policies. Uses the imagemap hack. Created by a user who has been doing some experimenting lately with his own version of this hack for his own userpage. The image used there is LOL.png. I very much doubt this is a desirable new use of the imagemap hack and I also doubt the creator is serious about it. Let's keep it limited to featured article and the like. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator removed template from eight policies on which it was transcluded, using popups, prior to nomination. This doesn't affect the merits of the template in terms of whether to delete it or not, but this template wasn't orphaned to begin with. So the question is, is this a good idea? I'm leaning towards no, because policies have {{policy}} on them, which identifies them well enough. The top-right corner thing is a good idea for featured articles, since an equivalent of {{policy}} for FAs would be a bad self-reference. Although mind you, self-references are not only allowed in the Wikipedia: namespace, they're existential. But, ceci n'est pas un !scrutin. Gracenotes ^T § 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove You guys can remove it now. It doesn't matter to me anymore, but keep my other one because I use that for getting back to User:Masky from my subpages. Masky (Talk | contribs) 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The userpage one isn't in question. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:41, 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:Serebiidex 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, defaulting to keep. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template links to a fansite (Serebii.net). It links to a section of the site that relates to the Pokemon species page it is placed on. However currently Serebii.net is not considered reliable by WP:PCP. Due to this the template is not helpful. Funpika 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since it contains an external link, I consider it a spam template. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that normally it is placed into the "external links" section right? Just wanted to let you know. Example of how it is used. Funpika 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funpika: please see Category:External link templates. And I couldn't care less about what WP:PCP says about the reliability of Serebii.net. However, its authors are anonymous. While anonymity can be fine, the site upon which this is published is not a generally reliable source to begin with, nor would I think that the author is doing anything other being a primary source (there is no indication that a more reliable source was cited, other than direct experience with the game). Oh, delete Neutrino. Gracenotes ^T § 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:LINKS as a reliable source for species data and encompassing info that would be outside of the scope this wiki. Any other alternative site would be incomparable (even pokemon.com doesn't have the level of info on each species). This is not a spam listing as it has a very high profile within the community already. Also satsifies the guidlines laid out at the link Gracenotes provided. your argument is that b/c the PCP doesn't like it it's unhelpful? One, you're mischaracterizing the attitude of the PCP (it's being debated). Two, the PCP doesn't control what gets put onto pokemon related articles, it's a place for centralized discussion and information. Members of the project are merely those who identify themselves as interested enough in pokemon as to want to regularly contribute to the topic. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the most reliable site ever (and seems to be noticeably unreliable by the PCP's standards). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - serebii's reliability has recently been coming under fire for reliability regarding english name releases not yet confirmed anywhere else, NOT in-game data. Both the nominator and AL2TP are mischaracterizing these discussions. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They came under fire for having no editorial oversight. Ie, one person writes and edits everything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - that's an unsubstantiated and oversimplified statement and misleading to readers not familiar with the site. In any case, this is not to determine whether serebii fits the cirteria to be used as a source but an external link - wikipedia links externally to many places that might not be suitable for sourcing. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you see something that that does not fall under the suggested external links at WP:EL, feel free to remove it. Now, while the page here may be factual or whatnot, the source may be primary (after all, it speaks of probability of an event happening -- I assume that that information came from another, more reliable sources). In addition, it is of little or no interest whatsoever to the average reader. It could even be considered an example of fancruft. Gracenotes ^T § 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And fancruft is exactly why it is linked. Cruft is regarded as information that goes into too much detail to be used in a general encyclopedia. From WP:EL, What should be linked - "3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks).... 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article...." Claiming an external link is cruft is probably the worst reason to say it shouldn't be included and is already a poor arguement for deletion of anything else. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A link to a picture gallery of a, say, Romantic artist at the bottom of that artist's page is relevant, and would interest someone who is trying to generally learn more about that artist. This, on the other hand, is a mere bunch of statistics. If I wanted to learn more about Pikachu, I would not go there–it's over most people's heads, or at least people who are not hardcore fans. This is a weak argument, and indeed it can go either way, so I am crossing my vote and replacing it with neutral. Nonetheless, I am still concerned about two things. First, the reliability of the source. A guidebook released by Nintendo, for example, would be so much more reliable. The second concern is that having this link on 493 pages implies a sponsorship of that site. If we link to the OEIS, there should be no problem, since that's sourced content, and can provide the reader with more sources. But this has no sources, and on top that, from a primarily social networking site. It's also an encyclopedic dead end, although that fact doesn't relate to WP:EL. Either way, it would be helpful if someone commented on this (hello someone else, come comment!). Gracenotes ^T § 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many 4th-generation Pokemon articles are semi'd because anons have been treating Serebii as a primary source, in part because the article here and the writeup there conflict in re the name. Further, I believe it may be a reason why anons and new users are adding strategy info, more out of the fact that the info is there rather than willfully violating the policy (which they are often unaware of). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- what exactly does your reason for deletion have to do with whether serebii should be externally linked as per WP:LINKS or the guidelines laid out at Category:External link templates? whether serebii should be used as a source is not in question. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, the primary objective of this TFD isn't whether it should be used as an external link or not, although it's closely related. Gracenotes ^T § 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- you are correct, but the value of the template rests on the value of the link, n'est-ce pas? Aside from my arguement that the template satisfies the guidlines at the above links, i'd also like to point out that this template is usable for future-proofing articles. Should serebii decide to change their internal structure, or when nintendo releases another set and serebii has to create a fourth pokedex, all species articles can be updated simultaneously with vastly less effort. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable site on fictional content (Aside from episode summaries the majority of info is just copy of the official data from the games). Its just an external link template... A website is ten times more convenient than a Nintendo book. -- Cat ^chi? 20:42, 24 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:Donotreplacefairuse 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 as WP:POINT. Templates that contradict policy are a Really Bad Idea. >Radiant< 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template is a warning against Wikipedia's policy. (if I read it correctly, it says unfree images shouldn't be replaced by free ones). — Abu badali ^(talk) 11:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misstates policy (unless there's some context I'm missing, in which case it does not supply enough context). Only one use apart from the TfD nomination. Gavia immer (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 100% opposite of policy. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:00, 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.