Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15 edit

Template:DYKRefresh 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 deleted (CSD G7) by User:Howcheng. Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template: no reason to keep.. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied it myself. It was created as a potential solution but never implemented. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 15 January 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:G14 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, renominate later. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G14 dissolved so if this template was to stick around it would be former members of G14 but that doesn't seem like a template that is needed. michfan2123 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, as the dissolution of the group is very recent (that is, today!) and so the article will need time to catch up. This template will remain a useful navigational template until G-14 and all the club articles are updated, and might even then be a useful redirect to a box of the new association, if one is considered necessary. No prejudice on renomination in a month or so, where I will vote delete if nothing has changed. Happy‑melon 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 11:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after disbanded, that's mean currently Keep. G-14 is not an official organisation. We don't have to make template to mention that. Raymond Giggs 11:42, 22 January 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:Johnny Depp films 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(Говорить!) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actor templates are not appropriate on film articles because such a template can encompass quite a few roles of any given actor. This is a bad trend to set because any film has numerous cast members, and if each cast member were to have his or her own template, there would be far too many at the end of an article. It is better off to have each actor have their filmography found on his or her respective article. Templates based on a person at film articles should generally only be directors, since there is almost always one (with the exception of pairings and combined shorts). — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Erik. The logical conclusion should these templates be allowed to stand would be page upon page filled with superfluous templates. One could imagine the mess in ensemble pieces especially. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent - we've had a few of these before. Happy‑melon 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent & nom rationale. SkierRMH (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~with comment~~ - I'm for deleting it, (but I'd like a couple days to convert the material included into a table for the actor's page. Done.) Creating these templates is a practice that is becoming more common and legitimate table materials are being subverted to them. That was done.Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guys please clear out most of Category:Film actor templates? There should be an explicit guideline on this somewhere to prevent further "starring" templates from popping up. 99.227.7.124 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the templates mentioned and nominated most of them for deletion as they are redundant from filmographies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:14, 16 January 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:Underconstruction 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this template for several reasons. Firstly, all Wikipedia articles can be considered under construction - even featured articles. Secondly, it is being used as a way of getting a page out of deletion, which I strongly oppose. Thirdly, it seems to violate WP:OWN to some extent. It's also unnecessary to have at the top of articles, and clogs up the page. If you're working on an article over time you don't need this - other people can see what you're doing from the edit history.. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see discussion at WP:CSD#Speed of speedies for just one example of why this template is in fact invaluable. Happy‑melon 10:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very important if somebody is mass-editing articles. It's to prevent edit conflicts. See Peter's Two Dads now for example of proper use. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template is a bit worrisome compared to {{Inuse}} (which I rather like) because of the instruction not to nominate for deletion before several days without edits. Articles in progress that cannot pass AFD in a day's editing should probably be moved to User space. Could this template be reworded, perhaps referring to the article's Discussion page where further information/suggestions can be made/provided? / edg ☺ ☭ 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Reword I can see a major problem with the last sentence of the template: "Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days." That can be misused by a clever troll. I would instead propose changing that to read: "Instead of deleting this page, please consider userfying", or something similar to that. --12 Noon ^2¢ 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This is a useful template designed to help reduce edit conflicts if an article is being edited sporadically. It is a good one for maintenance as if a page is under development, it makes it less likely to be nominated for deletion and, especially if an article has a lot of potential, this template can come in particularly useful; hence, my keep 'vote'. Qst 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per 12 Noon. I concur about rewording. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is deleted, it should redirect to template:inuse. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What is wrong with this template? It doesn't imply Ownership at all, it actually is very useful for marking articles to help others know that major expansion is in place. — master son^{T - C} 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing wrong with this. Disagree with most of nom, but still respect HSR for his courage to nominate it. It's probably helped me out a few times aswell. :) Rudget . 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is already a template to indicate an article is being edited - {{Inuse}}. This template is redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment {{inuse}} is for short-term in sections WHILE the user is actively editing, {{underconstruction}} is for long-term (approx one week) on the whole article indicating that research is being done on the article and editing is occuring sporadically — master son^{T - C} 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I agree with the nominator, as all articles are subject to being, or are in a state of construction. If this template is meant to stay on the page for a longer period of time than expected for normal edition, then the rationale given by others here that it will help prevent edit conflicts is, in fact, incorrect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then what about new articles - someone starts one - with just an infobox. Something like that could be speedy deleted by the time an editor who is researching gets back to it. — master son^{T - C} 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that the template is going to be kept, it's kind of futile to debate the point. However, there are already remedies to stop speedy deletion - such as removing the template - then making note on the discussion page. On the same note, an article that is so bereft of material that it consists of only an infobox may well be better developed on the user sandbox page, or better developed before it is actually created as an article. This template really seems to be more of a stall tactic than something to use constructively, but that's just my opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A stall tactic is constructive; the lack of a stall tactic is destructive in getting articles under construction deleted and disappointing new editors away. They aren't expected to know to develop articles in a sandbox, or how to make the article look standardized in a single edit. They can't remove the speedy deletion tag if it gets deleted within seconds. Finding out why their article was deleted and finding out how to legitimately recreate it are a huge hassle for people trying to write articles. 99.227.7.124 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reword per 12Noon
Keep and reword I can certainly see the advantages of this tag. It results in users not having to go through the whole process of having to explain why the article should be kept when the article hasn't even been finished to the basic standard the editor wishes to get to with major edits over a short period of time. Like any template it can be misused so pages that have this template just need to be watched to ensure that its being used for the correct purposes. Seddon69 (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reword per 12Noon. Hewinsj (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps rename: It's used under the context that the page is either starting out, or it's about to get throttled with a massive rewrite. It's needed, but I agree: It might be a bit confusing. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario Sonic BOOM! 16:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think you have slightly misunderstood the purpose behind the template. Of course all articles can never be finished, but some are just being put together, and this means long periods f editing that, if conflicted with other edits, can be rather frustrating. I can understand how the title "underconstruction" can be confusing, although after this debate perhaps a discussion about a new name can begin. Articles aren't owned by anyone, and articles are never finished, however, some are just starting out, and to avoid premature speedy tagging or edit conflicts at the maximum of their severity, this template works really well and serves its purpose appropriately. Spebi 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm not sure this is appropriate for articles, but I have used it myself in Projectspace for templates being designed by WP:AGRICULTURE and I've seen it use in Userspace, Templatespace, and Portalspace, where it is very important. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 21 January 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.