Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 7

< November 6	November 8 >

November 7 edit

Template:Hoodwinked 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! 07:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One movie by itself with a supposed, red-linked sequel and no other information whatsoever does not warrant a template. — Doczilla 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for template of one. Axem Titanium 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the "series" actually is a series. No note on main article substantiating the fact #2 is even in production. SkierRMH 15:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has only one working link. Having a template with one link isn't really template-worthy in my opinion. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary templates just clutter up pages, and one actual article? Nah. Someone another 00:07, 10 November 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 places 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the deletion/redirecting/merging of many Zelda location articles, {{Zelda}} now covers anything this template would hold. — Pagra shtak 16:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, virtually redundant. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superseded by Zelda template - only used in 3/4 places which can easily substitute this template. SkierRMH 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two items a template does not make. Axem Titanium 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply redundant now.Someone another 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Now unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 23:22, 15 November 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:RadioChicago 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used and has been replaced by both List of radio stations in Illinois in general and {{Chicago Radio}} in general. — JPG-GR 06:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated and superceded.SkierRMH 20:45, 7 November 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:RuneScape Wikia Link 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia promoting a commercial, outside source? bdude the duck 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is Wikia with the same MediaWiki system, I believe this would be permitted which is why I created it.

This template, while linking specifically to an article in RuneScape Wikia, it also serves the purpose to being a replacement for articles deleted before to avoid their recreation.

Finally, it is in Category:Wikia templates with other subjects amongst it, which may justify that other similar templates have been used in such a fashion. MapleStory has also used a template to link to a Wiki on various topics.

As long as it is to another Wiki and not a fansite, I believe it would be fine to link. It isn't commercial if I am not mistaken, as stated on the Wikia article, it "is a selective free web hosting service for wikis (or wiki farm) operated by Wikia, Inc." which "is free of charge for readers and editors and licenses user-provided content under the GNU Free Documentation License. Tarikochi 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per Tarikochi. Nail on the head. Needs to lose the green and borders (I'm not sure if its MoS-compliant), but that's not a matter for deletion. I'd just like to add that Wikia is just the Wikimedia Foundation in disguise, so it isn't very far outside Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is nothing of the sort. Wikia is not us and has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikimedia. It is a for-profit venture preying on the gullibility of Wikipedia editors like yourself. —Cryptic 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Wikia: "Wikia, Inc. has ties in terms of personnel and resources with the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia and other collaborative projects." Founded by Jimbo to boot. I never meant that they were 'officially' the same organisation, so okay, I could have phrased that better, but "nothing whatsoever to do with Wikimedia"? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, as with some other specific Wikia links in Category:Wikia templates. This template might need a recontruct, as the green background with showing borders may not satisfy the standard used with all templates. Perhaps we can manage an universal wikia template which could be also used in place of this? ~Iceshark7 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but it's ~~pig-ugly and~~ redundant. WP articles should not be peppered with external links to other sites (regardless of whether they're other wikis or commercial sites), we have external links at the end of articles to provide readers with other resources per WP:EL. The article has been given plenty of leeway in this department with three fansites and links to wikis. The only reasons each individual for each article to have these links would be promotion of this other wiki, which is clearly not the intention here, or that readers are incapable of using that wiki's own search engine - if that was the case, how did they get here? They'll just have to cope. ~~Despite your best intentions I suggest you quit while you're ahead - all this is doing is drawing a big question mark over the external links in the article.~~Someone another 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, the usage at MS is a fair point which needs looking at.Someone another 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that links in Category:Wikia templates are used for a variety of purposes, but are often used in the external links section rather than the article proper. Since RS consists of a single article (with the wiki already linked), this doesn't apply. Maple Story's usage may not be proper, I'm not certain on that, I've left a message on wikiproject videogames so hopefully they can provide some more opinions on whether the template is OK or not, or what can be done to improve it.Someone another 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tarikochi. She stole my ideas. :( ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's only being used in one article, and its placement is quite ugly. Simplify it to an external link in the appropriate header and delete this template. hbdragon88 09:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withholding vote for now: Tarikochi, are you going to use this on any other articles, or are you intent to only use it in the existing one? Because if you're content just with the one, it shouldn't be a template, it should be subst'd and deleted. Otherwise, it should be kept and made look a bit better. I think "pig ugly" is a bit of a rough term, but it's not the most attractive box around. Don't worry about it being WP:MOS compliant, since if that stands in the way of achieving a decent design, ignore it. You've got 4 days till this would inevitably be deleted (by looking at the votes here), but if you explain why this should be a template and not just, you know, a box in an article, speak now (and I'll respond with my support or opposition) or forever hold your peace. --lincalinca 09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only used in the RuneScape article, as there are no other articles related to RuneScape to use it in. It isn't subst'ed at the moment because of the way it is used. However, it is workable if need be. Tarikochi 03:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete with fire. Spam. Only Wikimedia sister projects should get sisterproject boxes. —Cryptic 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks horrible, and is only used in one article. A link to the RuneScape wiki may be appropriate at the end of the article, but placing an ugly green box at the top of almost every section is of no use - • The Giant Puffin • 20:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's ugly spam. beano 11:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helps keep Wikipedia from hosting unnecessary information. 1:18, 14 November 2007
Keep, and a comment to all the people who say "It's ugly, it must die". Well, if you think it's ugly, why don't you try and change that instead of just complain about it? Tesfan 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We do not accept spam like this. Overtemplatization is against the goals of the project. It's blatantly ugly, and it's not my job to make templates look pretty. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender}
Keep, if the template can be improved it's a nice way to keep any new fancruft that arises out of Wikipedia. If it can do that then the template would be useful given it's obvious it's not advertising a commericial site and is linked to another free wiki thats licensed under GNU Free Documentation License. Witchita au 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope whoever ends up closing this realizes that all the folks claiming Wikia is not a commercial site are, at best, dead wrong, or at worst, lying through their teeth. —Cryptic 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps we should remove the div box, de-center it, and put it in italics, as with Template:main and Template:see also? I think that would make it less obtrusive/unattractive. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:23, 15 November 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:When a Stranger Calls 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! 07:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless template for a movie with one sequel and one remake, with no longer links in the template. Doczilla 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete remakes don't belong in a template with the original (or vice versa) and the other film mentioned is the sequel, which is mentioned in the lead of the article, which is reciprocally noted in teh lead for wascb. --linca linca 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two films, plus a remake of one of them, is not enough to justify. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:39, 14 November 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:Billy Jack Movies 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless template (which also happens to have Movies incorrectly capitalized) for a series of three movies with no other related media or articles. Template serves no purpose when each article mentions all three movies, linking them all together without the template. — Doczilla 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though all four (yes four, not three) articles link to one another, that's not grounds for deletion. It should be moved to correct the capitalisation, but otherwise, the films ought to be remain templated, though Tom Laughlin should probably be linked in there too, since he played the main character and is another common thread throughout. --linca linca 05:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears useful. More content could be added. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:37, 14 November 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.