Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 26

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26 edit

Template:JJFRS character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template used by only one article and only once. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:Artemis Fowl Family 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Nominator withdrawn --Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template used in one article and only once. Contains trivial information easily found in the main article. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - only reason it's only used once is because of the slow expansion of Artemis Fowl family articles. Can be easily expanded to have more information. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now used twice and discussion is going on at WT:FOWL about creating another article (Paradizo family (Artemis Fowl)). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is reasonable enough. I withdraw this nomination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (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:Once Were Warriors character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template used by only one article and once. The template there can be replaced with a generic one. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:NOES Series Character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template used only by one article and can be replaced by a genereal infobox. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:WCRR Character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:Happy Tree Friends character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (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:Scream character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (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:Irish songs 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed here, outcome of discussion was inhertianly WP:NPOV with no way to fix it— Gnevin (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A template such as thus can never be complete, and the various attempts to define it more precisely have been POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's impossible to define it explicitly and no reason to have this big and ugly template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot understand why this is even being discussed. Magioladitis and BrownHairedGirl, I can't comprehend where you are coming from. If this 'Template' gets deleted, it's only right that the 'United Kingdom' version gets deleted also. --MaxPride (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you link to the uk template? Gnevin (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this template. Patriotic music in Ireland is a very important aspect of Irish life and culture. It makes utter sense to have such a template. It will act as a useful tool in order to research other patriotic songs.--CatBrea (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here, Template:British songs.--MaxPride (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per CatBrea and MaxPride. -- The Great Gavini 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the British songs has the same issues as the Irish one , inherently POV lade. How and who defines what is patriotic music and what is not ? In fact I've major issue's with List of patriotic songs which seems to be WP:OR and WP:NPOV but that's other issue Gnevin (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently requiring original interpretation: one cannot both objectively and non-arbitrarily judge whether a song is "patriotic", since the term itself is highly ambiguous in meaning. The existence of a similar template for British songs does not justify the existence of this one; if this is deleted, the British template can also be nominated and deleted. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this template useful in finding Irish nationalist songs. Don't confuse the choice of which songs to include (which seems an NPOV decision) with fact that the songs themselves are very much POV. Instead of adding The Sash etc to this template, surely it would be more constructive to have another template of unionist/loyalist songs/music. Dare I say it would be even more constructive to have links between the nationalist and unionist song templates... OldSpot61 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2008 (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:Jedi 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this isn't being used, it's probably for a good reason. We have generic fictional character infoboxes that can be used instead. Terraxos (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (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:SRMTHFG Character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template used only by ~~1 article of a character of Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!~~ no articles. I suggest we delete it. The article is using only 3-4 options of the template. Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (updated:12 May 2008)[reply]

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:The District Character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:DTNG character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template created two years and remains orphan till today. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's orphaned, so I suppose there's no reason for it to be around anymore. Cliff smith (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:The Shield character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template created last year and remains orphan till today. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:Mihighcharacter 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox template created in January and remains orphan till today. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:NYPD Blue Character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned infobox template. Never used. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (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:Chicago Cubs roster 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have Template:Cubs already. Buc (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are for different things. Template:Cubs is for player articles. Template:Chicago Cubs roster is for articles like Chicago Cubs. I've removed the nomination from the template.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as noted above, seems to be used for a different reason (plus it looks better). -- Ned Scott 07:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None should remove the nomination until discussion finishes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should if the discussion is only occurring because of a misunderstanding.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait if the nominator withdraws. I think you should vote speedy keep then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nominator didn't understand their purposes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I agree. :) (I just like WIkipedia rules!) -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chrisjnelson. Basketball 110 21:18, 26 April 2008 (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:Seconds From Disaster 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 section.

The result of the debate was Subst on main article, remove from other articles, and then delete. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft and this is not a episode article links. — Dust1235 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)— Dust1235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Delete~~ I guess, since these events and links are already listed in the article on the episode table. I'd be interested in hearing the thinking behind the template, though. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a style perspective, I think the episode table is a far better place for these links, and placing them as a "nav template" could be a bit confusing to some. However, I don't feel strongly about it, and since others have stated an interest in it, I'll retract my support for deletion. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator). The reason is as for any other template, information and navigation. And it is not a list, so how is it listcruft? I don't understand what "this is not a episode article links" is supposed to mean. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to speedy keep, nominator appears to be a single purpose account MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The episodes aren't notable, but the insidents are. The template itself isn't about the episodes, but what they [the episodes] are about. Basketball 110 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is actually one of the more useful templates I've come across. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I doubt this nomination was made in good faith. Reasons for wanting deletion are unintelligible and from an SPA. – jaksmata 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's helpful, unless you can show a WP rule stating otherwise I'm voting keep. --Obamaspam (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Navigation templates like this should only be on the articles about their topic. In this case that would be articles about Seconds From Disaster. As it stands, this is just a big template put on articles about disasters that there were episodes about. If you were to take out the "National Geographic Seconds From Disaster episodes" heading, it would be a list of links to random disaster articles with no discernible connection. As it should only be on Seconds From Disaster articles it is basically redundant to the episode guide on the main article. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Mr.Z-man. As noted, "the template itself isn't about the episodes, but what they [the episodes] are about". There is no need for a template to connect one article about a real-world disaster with another article about a completely unrelated disaster. That the Chernobyl disaster, for instance, was profiled for the Seconds From Disaster series is ultimately an extremely minor detail in the context of the Chernobyl disaster. At most, this template ought to appear only in Seconds From Disaster, where it is redundant to the episode list. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays such as Navigation templates, which are not policy or guidelines, are freely ignored on Wikipedia by those who don't agree with them, and as you see above, a few people do think it's a worthy relation to make. And I think you and Z-Man are highly over-stating the significance this template implies to an article, an auto-collapsed one line template at the bottom of an article hardly suggests anything like being a 'major detail' of the article, not any more than including a one line link to Sfd to the See Also section, but you cannot deny the relation is notable by the fact these incidents were all considered complex enough to be profiled on Sfd as to what happened and what caused them. Get the navbox essay turned into a guideline and I might be persuaded, otherwise, it looks like the template's use in this situation is not overly detested by too many people. MickMacNee (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I agree with most of what's written in the essay, the essay is not the basis for my "delete" recommendation. Rather, it is the fact that there is no substantive connection between Chernobyl and the 1974 Super Outbreak, or between the Oklahoma City bombing and the Galtür Avalanche, to pick just two examples. That the disasters were profiled on SFD is merely an indication that they are noteworthy disasters; it does not imply any deeper relationship. Thus, any grouping of these disasters outside of the context of the Seconds From Disaster series is inherently arbitrary or trivial. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I can only repeat what I said above, I haven't and it doesn't imply any strong relationship, but it documents the one that exists. I can't put it any better than by saying the one line template takes up as much article real estate as a single line addition of Seconds from Disaster into an article's See Also section, and I'm sure you wouldn't be opposing that if that edit were made to any of these articles, or would you? That would seem an extreme minimalist approach to me. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would support a "See also" link to a specific SFD episode (e.g. a link to Galtür Avalanche (Seconds From Disaster episode) at Galtür Avalanche#See also) if individual episodes were notable and had their own articles. However, I really see no value in a link to the general SFD article: the relationship between these disasters and SFD is significant in the context of the TV series, but is (generally) trivial in the context of the disasters. Thus, while the disasters should be linked from the SFD article, I think that including a link to Seconds From Disaster in the articles about the disasters only worsens the signal-to-noise ratio for readers. Major disasters like Chernobyl, the 1995 Oklahoma bombing, the eruption of Mount St. Helens, or the sinking of the Titanic have been profiled, reconstructed, or imitated in hundreds of books, magazines, articles, television programmes, and the like, and I see no reason to link to any of them (except perhaps as a source). While it's true that a link would "document the [relationship] that exists", I don't think that the relationship is worth documenting. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, trivial is a subjective term that is over-used all over wikipedia, and seriously depends on your perspective and purpose for reading, and yours looks to be very conservative if you wouldn't even put a documentary of such exposure as Sfd in the See Also section. I still think with the phrases above, you're still over-stating your case, especially in light of the above keep votes. But we're going circles now, so I'm done if you are. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose my approach could be construed as being somewhat conservative, though I wish to note again that I only oppose a "see also" link to the general Seconds From Disaster article, not to a more directly relevant article. Of course, I didn't and don't expect that everyone will agree, but I also don't think that most of "keep" suggestions above touch on this issue. One focuses on the identity of the nominator (a single-purpose account so far, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything yet) and another seems to touch on the notability of the articles themselves. Granted, two other editors mention that the template is "useful" or "helpful", which does directly counter my comments, but no details are offered as to how or why it is useful or helpful to them. Anyway, I agree that we've mostly covered what there is to cover. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Due to the backlog at Tfd, this was the point at which this Tfd had been listed for 7 days and was moved to 'Old discussions'.

Delete - I agree 100% with Mr.Z-man when he says it is "...a list of links to random disaster articles with no discernible connection." Seth Whales (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from them all having been investigated by Seconds From Disaster. MickMacNee (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never heard of "Seconds From Disaster". Maybe someone should start a new template on world events covered by Panorama, a BBC television programme in the UK? Seth Whales (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or maybe we delete everything from Wikipedia you've never heard of. It is understandable though if you have no clue what the series was about, that you might make an ultimately spurious comparison to Panorama MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Put it on the SFD page only. I feel the pages pointed should have a link to the SFD page instead, and that links to other disasters are better handled by categories. Ecb (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above, the template on article pages is collapsed, and thus takes up as much space as a single See Also link. I don't see the logic in removing the template for that reason, you don't save anything, yet you lose information. In fact I don't see any logic to the delete arguments so far at all. They don't see a useful relation because they are not interested in the topic, it's just a pedantic way of stating WP:IDON'TLIKEIT MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at it on article pages, it isn't collapsed into one line: it's a big box full of links. I expect that's because I use an old skin (Classic) or something: but I still vote to delete. Ecb (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Mr.Z-man. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he said "redundant to the episode guide on the main article". As such, he clearly didn't look at the template or that page properly, because you cannot just look at that article and see the relations presented in the template. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, the template should list the episodes not a list of disaters. Morid Rhosard (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:Users 11th edit
- This makes no sense, there are no episode articles, the disaster link is the episode, the program only covers 1 disaster per episode. MickMacNee (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that there are no episode articles is precisely the argument against the template's existence. The articles to which the template links are about individual disasters which have no substantive connection to SFD. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apart from having been completely analysed and reconstructed in the Sfd episode with that disaster as the episode's subject, that is the whole point. You are really stretching the bounds of the word 'connected'. Most articles have more space given up to popular culture references, yet an actual documentary analysing the disaster is unconnected?. MickMacNee (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep to "Disasters covered in National Geographics "Seconds From Disaster". The template seems very useful. CompuHacker (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many of these disaster have been covered by several TV shows. If this template is not deleted, we'll end up many templates on each disaster page. Will we someday have a "Movies by James Cameron" template attached to the Titanic article? --Jonovision (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has never been a valid argument for deletion on Wikipedia. Maybe if these other shows are as notable, and referenced as often on wikipedia as Sfd is, then who are you to say they don't belong on wikipedia? Have you seen how many templates there are on famous football team articles? And there are plenty of templates around actors films etc, not that the James Cameron example is even vaguely comparable, but that also is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Mick, I feel like you have not taken the time to understand my point, so I'm going to spell out my argument in detail, and also respond to each of your points.

Firstly, my argument for deletion of this template is as follows:

There are hundreds of TV shows, movies, and books about the Titanic.
Most of the producers of these works have also produced other works, many of which also discuss other historical events.
It would be possible to create templates for each of these producers and attach them to the Titanic article, and others. (For example: "Coloring Books by Peter F. Copeland")
The Titanic article would end up containing a multitude of templates, the vast majority of which would be completely irrelevant to any individual reader (including the Disasters template)
It would be difficult to argue that any particular one of these templates has any more value than the others.

In conclusion, my point is that if one wishes to defend the existence of the "Seconds from Disaster" template, one also, simultaneously, defends the existence of potentially hundreds of other similarly structured templates. While this hasn't become a problem yet, one piece of litter is still litter, and it should be cleaned up before it turns into a big pile of garbage.

Secondly, you will need to fully explain your counter-points if we are to accept them. Specifically:

This has never been a valid argument for deletion on Wikipedia - The deletion policy which you cite only lists common valid reasons for deletion -- it does not list invalid reasons.
Maybe if these other shows are as notable, and referenced as often on wikipedia as Sfd is, then who are you to say they don't belong on wikipedia -- WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions warns against making poorly substantiated notability arguments such as this. Also, please keep in mind that everyone here has just as much right to say it doesn't belong as you do that it does.
Have you seen how many templates there are on famous football team articles? And there are plenty of templates around actors films etc, not that the James Cameron example is even vaguely comparable, but that also is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The James Cameron template I speculated about does not exist. On the other hand, the point you just made falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It would be very helpful to all of us if you could re-read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then clarify why we should be looking to football articles to make a decision about the relevance the Disaster template.

To summarize, I believe (as, it seems, do the majority of those who have responded so far) that the Disasters template is not relevant to most readers of the articles it appears within. While it may not be terribly obtrusive at the moment, its existence invites and justifies the creation of many similar templates.

My questions to you are:

Do you want to see dozens of similar templates on the Titanic article? Or even on every disaster article?
And if not, why is the "Seconds to Disasters" template any more notable than the rest?

--Jonovision (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (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:Feätured article 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#G3: Vandalism. The creator and only primary contributor of this template designed it as an exactly duplicate of Template:Featured article, then put this on articles that clearly have never been promoted to FA status yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is simply useless. It's not being used either. — eDenE 00:54, 26 April 2008 (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.