Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 December 2)
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2 edit

Template:Johnny Test 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 --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Johnny Test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Cast templates seem to be discouraged, especially given that none of the cast is primarily associated with this show. Remove the cast and you have just the creator and list of episodes, as the page on Johnny himself was redirected. Not enough for a template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: not enough articles primarily related to this topic for a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely per nom. Two directly related articles (main article, LoE) don't need a template.– sgeureka t•c 18:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Could be useful, but...not important. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:06, 9 December 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:Infobox UK school2 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK school2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Appears to be a user test.

Template:Infobox UK person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redirects to the above.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:27, 2 December 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:Kill Bill 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kill Bill character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 2 December 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:SVU Season 4 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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SVU Season 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All but one two SVU episode articles have been merged/redirected/deleted per lack of demonstated/demonstratable notability in the past two months. The season-specific templates are just redundant now, as the season pages already list the names of the episodes. Also included in this nom are

– sgeureka t•c 17:06, 2 December 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:Smallcaps 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 per the snowball clause. As a note: inappropriate use of a template doesn't inherently warrant its deletion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smallcaps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Re-nominating: previous nom was here, and was closed early due to a now-corrected technicality. This purely-presentational template is purportedly for "name/surname disambiguation in lead sections, and all-caps words or pronounceable acronyms", but none of those require small caps and in few cases would it seem to be desirable. We shouldn't encourage users to experiment with presentational markup like this by having templates for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Though if you don't like its use in certain places, remove it. It looks like this template is largely used within other templates (thus the high transclusion count). But I can't see a reason to delete templates like "Smallcaps" or templates like Template:Red simply because people might mis-use them. They're still more convenient than the actual HTML markup, and that's the point of having templates in the first place. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MZMcBride. This seems a useful template, and I'm not aware that the usage of small caps is deprecated. (I noticed the template was up for deletion from its use in the FA Dalek, where the text "(pronunciationⓘ "dah-leck", /ˈdɑːlεk/)" seems useful and attractive to me, in a belt-and-braces manner.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the two above comments; this template definitely has legitimate uses, a few mishaps aren't a good enough reason for deletion. ChrisDHDR 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move the inline styling to WP's CSS and apply as a class. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the advantage of moving this CSS into a WP wide class, i don't see it ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep, one can readily think of many valid applications for displaying certain items in smallcaps font, eg commonly seen in linguistics articles to denote grammatical tags/functions. The template is a handy and simple method for doing so. Clearly there are many practical implementations already for this template, there's no experimentation going on — if there are any cases of 'inappropriate use' then deal with those separately, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when was this a speedy keep criterion? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" seems to apply (there may not be an active dispute, but please don't try to make a policy on presentational style by deleting a template which applies a contrary, but accepted, style). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The mainspace transclusions all appear to be inappropriate, given the MoS's stance on keeping markup simple; I'd neglected to consider the template's use in other templates, which is why this will probably be kept, but "this has many useful uses" is not a speedy keep rationale and I reject the assumption that I was acting in bad faith or trying to circumvent discussion by bringing this here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have made no assumptions of bad faith; however, the effect of your proposal would be as I described. In the light of your acknowledgement of other uses, and of the likely outcome, I sgegst you withdraw it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Meh. It's generating useful commentary, which will help to clarify the template's purpose. If you want to NAC it then be my guest, but it means having to flag an admin to take the TfD tag off it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the two above comments. VVVladimir (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template seems to be used a lot in displaying latin text (such as here) and it seems to work well. I don't see why it should be deleted. Wikitiki89 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -somehow this must redirect to the {{aut}}-template which I use in refs, since a link to this discussion pops up there (awful). If the two templates are the same I'm against deletion of either one of them. Woodwalker (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep nomination breaks too many pages.  Grue  15:46, 4 December 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:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism 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 --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

90% of content already in Template:Campaignbox India terrorism, also article Terrorism in Mumbai is enough. TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process comment Shouldn't a "TfD" notification template be put on the template itself? Since I oppose the deletion and created the template, I am conflicted on doing this, but I think there should be a time extension on the deletion until this is done. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see history of the template--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom--Adrian 1001 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template is useful to connect the historic occurrence of terrorism in Mumbai and as a substitute for "See Also" material in the related articles (so that when there are updates we have a central place instead of having to go to each article). While some content (not 90%) is also covered in the India campaingbox, the India campaign box is limited to actions after 2001. I feel a localized template was warranted. Furthermore, I opened a discussion topic on the page of November 2008 Mumbai attacks (the latest attacks), so I feel that a TfD is a bit premature and harsh (to the content - don't worry, I am not taking it personal ;-), perhaps letting the community express itself outside of process would have been more useful than opening a deletion discussion right away. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - despite the fact that all the links in this template are already included in {{Campaignbox India terrorism}}, I think it is actually useful in its own right, as it singles out the attacks in Mumbai. Perhaps most preferable would be to separate the attacks in the 'India terrorism' box by location, which would remove the need for this template - but if that one remains as it is, this one seems worth keeping as a Mumbai-focused alternative. Terraxos (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It serves a useful purpose for a narrative. The only issue is whether it is duplicative of the other infobox. It might be nice if there were other "submenu" templates for, say, Delhi, or other geographic areas of India particularly affected by multiple attacks. So it was part of a pattern of information presentation, and not a singular exception. Make sense? --Petercorless (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cerejota and Terraxos. The nomination doesn't seem to have any reasons why it shouldn't exist, as we're replete with redundant navboxes and navbox-like things. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terrorism in Mumbai does have its own unique components as compared to Terrorism in India, the template serves a useful purpose (the fact that it includes pre-2001 incidents is important. Kaushik twin (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe the reason for deletion to be just. Ijanderson (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cerejota. Neither do I, the template is perfectly fine to single out the terrorist attacks in this particular city, since it has been a reoccuring thing. - Epson291 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the number of times Mumbai has faced terrorism, it is very helpful to have a separate template mentioning the list of terror attacks that have taken place in the city. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 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:Terrorism in Central Asia by country 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC) This navigating template makes no sense, because already there is "Terrorism in" in general template for Asia (Template:Asia in topic): Template:Asia in topic. Including those six countries. --91.77.93.43 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 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:Stan Lee 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stan Lee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too broad a template, and hardly links anywhere on Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought I was making a useful template. *sigh* Just delete it, don't really care. J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 18:53, 1 December 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:Sydney image with region labels 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. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sydney image with region labels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I had already typed a long winded reason but the thingy I use for XfD screwed up and lost it. I was saying how the template mixes esoteric definitions with ubiquitous ones (eg. St. George with Eastern Suburbs. Just because it has a wiki article doesn't mean it is an accepted or even known definition), how it changed the area of Eastern Suburbs to exclude Bondi Beach and something called 'South-eastern Sydney', while it is interesting Bondi Beach gets its own region (equal in status to North Shore, Western Sydney...) I frankly haven't got a clue what SE Sydney is or when I moved there. I think there are serious problems with maintaining this template given its arbitrary current state, not to mention the lack of a ubiquitous definition of regions for Sydney. This is an edit war waiting to happen. Another point is its lack of usefulness, the only people to whom this would be of any benefit would be people already familiar with Sydney's geography, since the map is hard to place and confusing. This purpose would be far better served with individual maps on individual articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I created this template to reduce redundancy in the Sydney articles. Rather than deleting the maps, we should be correcting the labels to make them more consistent with reality. The template provides a centralised place where these labels can be updated. Without the template, we're going to end up with separate maps being maintained in different places. Perhaps a good place to start looking for labels to use in the improved template would be Regions of Sydney. I unfortunately don't have the time to improve the template at the moment, but to delete it would reduce the quality of the articles that use it, and negatively impact the maintainability of articles covering those regions. -- Mark Chovain 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should note you are the template's creator, no? The template is incorrect, and given the fluidity of the definitions in question, unmaintainable. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to be rude, but did you miss the bit at the start where I said, "I created this template ..."? It is far easier to maintain this in one place than in a dozen. -- Mark Chovain 07:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eep, my apologies. I have a tendency to read too fast and miss details, didn't notice it. I was rather surprised to see you seemingly omit the part, which is why I felt I should note it. Again, my apologies. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - no problem. But I should clarify: I created the template, but not the content. As shown in the History, I excised it from one of the regional articles, then replaced it in all the others. -- Mark Chovain 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mark Chovain. Mark may be the creator, but he is right. Just because the template had one incorrect area doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and delete it altogether. It serves a useful purpose showing vaguely where particular identified areas of Sydney are. The other terms "St George", "Eastern Suburbs", "North Shore", "Northern Suburbs", etc. are in common parlance in Sydney, and yes they do overlap - but that's not a reason to delete it. There is an article somewhere that explains what the regions are. Like Mark, I believe we should improve the template, not simply get rid of it. It is certainly not "unmaintanable". INTGAFW (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I consider my eyesight to be quite good, but could hardly make head nor tail of the overhead – in short, it is awful, completely meaningless. A simple map (with boundaries?) rather than a satellite image would be a great improvement, and vastly improve its usefulness. bigissue (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no boundaries - the terms do not represent a precise geographical area (unlike suburbs). The areas of Sydney described, apart from the one complained about above (which can easily be deleted) are commonly used and there are sources for them if you want to find them. INTGAFW (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much WP:OR to be useful, unfortunately - much as I respect the work that went into it. Orderinchaos 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Orderinchaos, apart from "South East Sydney", of those terms are in common parlance in Sydney and are not original research. The areas themselves are not precisely defined but as they only indicate a general area, they are fine in the form that they are in. This image is really helpful and needs to be kept (but can be improved). INTGAFW (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it would be better to start again with a completely new graphic, concentrating on accuracy and above all complete clarity. --Kleinzach 01:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've seen reason's why this template should be improved, but no reasons why it should be deleted. If people want it improved, then they should go ahead and improve it. It's not perfect, but it fills a role, and is better than nothing. -- Mark Chovain 08:06, 2 December 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 Santa Clause 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 --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Santa Clause (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with only three links. Each film already links to the other. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:03, 2 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_2&oldid=1138692358"