Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 18

< October 17	October 19 >

October 18 edit

Template:Infobox Town Slovakia 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. Mike Peel 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template is now obsolete and has been replaced in the articles by the Geobox templates. — MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template has been replaced by a newer one and is not in use. Tankred 17:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. —MJCdetroit 04:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneeded template. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 21:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek 12:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and obsolete. Carlosguitar 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned & obsolete. SkierRMH 19:40, 26 October 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:Royal Navy (escort) 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! 05:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate as creator. Unused template experiment that has been deprecated by more useful ones supported across a number of WikiProjects. — Emoscopes ^Talk 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is not in use, was created just as an experiment and is nominated here by its very creator. Tankred 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jll 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G7, author request. Carlosguitar 16:55, 22 October 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:V for Vendetta 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. Regardless of the number of paticipants in this TfD, small, tightly controlled navboxes exist in many places throughout Wikipedia and deleting this one would be unwise without considering many others. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template doesn't add anything useful to the articles as the subject isn't broad enough require complex navigation (it is only a single graphic novel and a film adaptation). The articles themselves provide sufficient links to each other. Maccy69 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to need a small bit of clarification here: What is the "complexity/depth threshold" for navboxs and Categories? And in which order is it preferred? (ie - none, navbox, cat or none, cat, navbox)
I'm asking because this 'box also has a pair of "sister" cats: Category:V for Vendetta and Category:V for Vendetta characters. It seems to me that, if the articles are to well integrated, and narrow enough to not warrant a navbox, they also don't warrant the cats. This also affect similar cats since the CfD for Category:Watchmen has had templatization (make a navbox) as a suggestion. Slightly redundant since {{Watchmen}} exists and is similar to the V 'box. - J Greb 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's an official policy here - I just couldn't see why anybody would use the V for Vendetta navbox for anything. In my view, the same would apply to the categories and to The Watchmen categories and navboxes - they are single self contained entities, so you everything can be easily linked from the main aticle, making categories and navboxes superfluous. Most comics/graphic novels are ongoing series - and I can see how a navbox makes sense there. However, I'm relatively new here and I'm happy to listen to other people's ideas on this. If people agree that this template should go, then I'll nominate the categories and the Watchmen stuff as well. By the way, there's a similar discussion going on in WikiProject Comics. - Maccy69 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the material at WPComics, and had thrown in 2¢ re the cats.

The nutshell is, I don't disagree with your logic, but there are editors that clamor that the concentrated navboxes and cats make navigation easier. All the links in one place, no bothersome text to hunt through.

As far as I'm concerned, this template, the Watchman one, and the related cats are worthless. The same goes for any other tightly related ones. - J Greb 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I would ask any editors who "clamor" in the way you suggest to take a step back and consider if they are really thinking like readers about this. Having said that, what drew my attention to the "V fo Vendetta" was the fact that it was bright red and didn't collapse. Now that I've redesigned it, I'm not sure if it clutters up the articles too much (the same would apply to cats) - so I guess it isn't essential to remove them because they are making the articles difficult to read. If it doesn't get deleted here, I'll try removing it from Alan Moore (otherwise, he could have a navbox for every comic series he worked on) - beyond that, it's only a minor annoyance and I can live with it. A possible different approach to all this - if we're saying the subject it too narrow for a navbox or a series of catagories then we should be able to merge all the articles listed into one or two articles, thus obvious making the navbox/cats redundant. For example all "V for Vendetta" articles could easily be merged into three: the comic, the film and the characters. Maccy69 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree, since if I wanted to get to specific subject, the nav template is useful. IT also summarizes what detailed articles are available, which is not what you'd get in reading the text. Perhaps this is a difference in the way people perceive data and data access. Databases use indices for a reason, and if you think in a similar way, using tags and shortcuts instead of directory trees, then you'd want a nav template. 132.205.99.122 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about {{V for Vendetta}} or navboxes in general? It isn't clear from what you've said above. I think that in general navboxes are very useful for things, I just don't think that the one for V for Vendetta serves any useful function, that's all. If you are commenting on this specific TfD, please put a left-aligned bulleted comment that says Delete or Keep (or whatever you think) first, followed by your reasoning. See the main article for more details. Thanks. Maccy69 22:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking in the general case, as it's often the cause where because template exists and interlinks sufficiently is a reason for category deletion. And thus people 'templatize' categories. 132.205.99.122 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template does not have too many entries and its links deserve to be in a "See also" section instead of a template. Madhava 1947 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure of precedent, but I'm personally of the opinion that a template looks more professional in an article than a "See also" section. GlassCobra 21:02, 28 October 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:Celebrity Ships 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. matt br 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an actual template on this page and I see no reason to need a specific template for one cruise line's ships.Cromdog 14:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a useful template providing easy navigation between the cruise ships of a certain line. I don't see a strong reason to delete. What is essentially wrong with creating a template for one line's ships, if the line is large, very famous, and containing more than 10 ships? It would not make sense to create one template for all notable cruise ships and lines in the world. Rai-me 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If someone is looking at an article on one of the line's ships, then it is quite plausible that they would want to navigate to an article on another of the ships. Similar templates exist for other cruise lines, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Carnival_Cruise_Line and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Holland_America_Ships Jll 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful navigational template, all uses appear to be quite legitimate. SkierRMH 19:38, 26 October 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:Kate Nash 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. matt br 12:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the template is needed as the artist is not notable enough to need a template at the current time. I think we should wait for the artist to become more notable before a template is made. Thundermaster367 13:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There should not be further "notability" requirements for navigational templates. If an artist has multiple articles, a navigational template is definitely reasonable and useful. --- RockMFR 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There shouldn't be notability requirements, but there are only five articles here (since one's a duplicate and two are only tangentially related). 17Drew 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep If the artist's article is deemed to be notable, then the nav templates shouldn't be under question. It appears from the article that there are a few additional articles that could be linked. SkierRMH 19:36, 26 October 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:Extreme metal 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. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we don't need this template for the following reasons:

This template is based on an article containing unverifiable claims and original research: Extreme metal.
Genres mentioned in this template are regarded extreme. The genres are connected by their extremity. How does that comply with WP:NPOV?
Genres mentioned in this template are regarded metal. What about grindcore, crust punk, deathcore and other metal/hardcore hybrids?
Unlike the f.e. the heavy metal template, sub genres and sub-sub-sub genres are mixed.. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I edited it to remove non-metal genres (Crust Punk) and sorted out sub-genres from fusion genres. 24.139.31.210 02:30, 22 October 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:Katori class cruisers 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 under G6 (Housekeeping). The only differences between the two templates were minor CSS changes, indicating it was a copy and paste fork of the original. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused template that is obsoleted by the more properly named Template:Katori class cruiser. — Maralia 04:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as Housekeeping, this template is a duplication of Template:Katori class cruiser. Carlosguitar 13:04, 18 October 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.