Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

March 9 edit

Template:Morrowind 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! 06:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No longer necessary; doesn't navigate anywhere and all links connected to same page. --♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Pomte 10:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This just needs a technical fix to the redirect pages like these two which now work per the editor's presumed intent:

17:30, 10 March 2007 (diff) m Dagon Fel (++{{R to list entry}#Dagon Fel) (top)
17:29, 10 March 2007 (diff) m Balmora (++{{R to list entry}#Balmora (top)

Further, it's fairly obvious this is a series where there is room for additional pages and even expansion of these sections which are currently handled correctly by inclusion in the single page the nom dislikes. The technical fix is as above, and so will then work and be useful.

- All of the pages on the template redirect to the exact same page; this template, in essence, doesn't navigate, like other templates do. Even if you specify the redirects, the template is quite useless. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template has no function beyond the table of contents at Settlements of Morrowind. If enough (notable) Morrorwind articles get written over the redirects, then feel free to re-create this template. –Pomte 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Niroht | Smoke signals 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also strongly suggest that all Wikiprojects should perhaps extend the priniciple of tagging redirects to their own disambigulation and redirects category pages so that Category:Redirects to list entries doesn't become unmanagable-- just add your subcategory in that parent category, and create a [[Template:R from list Your project's Sub-category page name or project]] template to define the |subcat= parameter I just added to the Template:R to list entry(edit talk links history) template. // FrankB 17:57, 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:Disneywienies 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! 06:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just incredibly useless. Who's to say what's a 'Disney park icon' and how is it encyclopaedically relevant? - SergioGeorgini 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{Disneyland2}}. Since "icon" is not really defined (and strikes me as redundant to "attraction"), perhaps Category:Disney parks icon can be CFD'd. Gracenotes ^T § 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and POV. –Pomte 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not POV; the 'icons' are the advertising logos of their repsective parks, at least in the U.S. 1ne 02:29, 16 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:Koreanmilitary 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. IronGargoyle 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only page linked to it was Military of South Korea, which now includes the content directly. Should be deleted if no other use exists. --YooChung 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant, because its almost link-less its overall value on wikipedia appears low.Telly addict 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist so consensus can be reached.
Come on admins, be bold. Unused templates with no objections to deletion don't really need to be relisted. -Amarkov moo! 06:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Gracenotes ^T § 17:56, 9 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:Serart 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. Only one vote for it is an unused, redundant template. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very redundant to Serart article (which is very short) and Template:System of a Down. This article doesn't need a navigation template--Frédérick Lacasse (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serart has only one album. All the other linked articles are only indirectly related. –Pomte 10:22, 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:Vvardenfell 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! 06:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the links of this template are redirects that now link to the same page section. Because of the said redirects, this template is basically useless. --♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason to have a navigational template that doesn't navigate. Gracenotes ^T § 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless separate articles will be created for the links in the temp, which I highly doubt will happen.. —dima/s-ko/ 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --Koveras ^☭ 07:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criterion would we speedily delete this? Or are you thinking of crystalline precipitation? Gracenotes^T § 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha...that's funny...crystalline precipitation.... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous comments. mattbr³⁰ 11:52, 9 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:Rare 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CVG project has rejected these company-level templates as being not very useful. See the TFDs for Template:Nintendo franchises and Template:Square Enix franchises for precedent. Hbdragon88 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these are not franchises, but merely video games, so the WP:NOT#IINFO logic of the previous nominations do not apply. Of course, the CVG project does not own templates in its subject matter, but the latter is probably the most compelling reason to delete, unless the nominator can provide a different one. Gracenotes^T § 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Each of those games already has their own navbox. Grouping them by developer also leads to holes - for instance, Rare didn't make Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat and a few other games, so the DK series isn't complete and far less useful than {{Donkey_Kong_series}}, which lists all of the DK games. Hbdragon88 03:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyway. Each of these series has its own series template, so this is both bulky and redundant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems very useful for at least the main Rare article. As Gracenotes has said, the CVG project does not own every game article and template. --- RockMFR 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have List of Rare Ltd. games and Category:Rareware games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only project that could ever make use of it has rejected it; I don't see how any article on the encyclopedia would gain from its continued existence. anthonycfc ^[talk] 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OWNing is irrelevant, because there is still a consensus not to have these. And consensus OWNs every article. -Amarkov moo! 06:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 15:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have edited the template leaving only franchises that originated from Rare Ltd. and also specified the timeframe of which Donkey Kong games were developed by Rare. The template similar to Template:Bungie Studios, serves a purpose in that it links various Rare franchises together. Many Rare franchises are interdependant where characters from other franchises appear in games. The List of Rare Ltd. games is far too long and includes various games of which does not belong to any specific franchise. I do however believe that the template should not grow its size, and still should be downsized to only include main franchises. However the template is not irrelevant and does serve a purpose. Stickeylabel 01:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should probably kill Bungie Studios as well, as there are now templates that replace the usefulness of that template. Like AMIB said, each of the other franchises respectively have their own navbox. The DK series is pretty pointless - readers associate games by the main character (Donkey Kong), not by who developed them. And Rare has only had an incomplete smattering of DK games. The other games are a hopeless lump that spans pretty far-flung genres; I wouldn't group GoldenEye 007 with Jet Grind Radio, for instance, and the only such grouping is due to the same developer. Hbdragon88 05:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencylopedic listcruft.Hondasaregood 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One man's listcruft is anothers useful link to related materials. Such templates fill the gaps in categorization, and if accurate, even so called 'incomplete' are useful. Bring it up again when the template is unused; this one is transcluded in more than a screenful of pages. Such nominations are abuse of this system to subvert content battles. Fight it out in the trenches, not here. Please stop, such is WP:POINT in disguise and I for one, don't appreciate it. // FrankB 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template. - Nick C 13:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, adding a [HIDE]/[SHOW] would probably be useful here. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen one that wasn't glitchy as all get out, and what advantage does a template you have to click to use have over a category? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change I made a sample of a Rare Template that I feel should provide a solution. Check it out here: [1]. Please tell me what you think. DietLimeCola 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That template even more so resembles the now-deleted Nintendo and Square-Enix franchises. A list of all the series has even less relevence than listing each game. Hbdragon88 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Std. nav. box template, who cares if "CVG project has rejected these company-level templates". --Matthew
Keep per FrankB. I also like the version created by DietLimeCola. - Peregrine Fisher 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its usefull and tells us all about Rare has a company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elven6 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 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:Neopets/sfansites 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! 06:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is used in one article (Neopets) apparently to hide the external links section from anon and/or uninformed editors. This is not how templates should be used. --- RockMFR 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with strong prejudice, and in fact scrap the "fansites" section in the external links altogether. It's problematic and marginally fails WP:EL. Whatever happened to being bold? Gracenotes ^T § 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Assuming good faith: even if these links were great, thats not what a template is for. —dgies^t_c 07:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not what templates are for. mattbr³⁰ 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misuse of a template. Though I compliment their innovativeness in stopping linkspam. --tjstrf talk 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Speedy-Delete -- no growth potential, no further applicability. // FrankB 18:00, 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.