Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 18

< October 17	October 19 >

October 18 edit

Template:Filmyear 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The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. The creator of the page, as well as others, have worked out a system to limit the usage of the template. --NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per wp:dates, this template has now deprecated. Deleting this will clear off a lot of linked dates that don't need to be linked. If there is a pressing need to readd the link for a specific article, then the regular brackets can be used. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This template only works to provide a streamlined way to add distracting and useless Easter Egg links into articles, against consensus. Bin it with extreme prejudice. --John (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest bolding "Delete" so it stands out? I almost didn't see it when I read through this page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Far from being useless it gives readers a quick and easy link to find the films that came out in the same as the one that they are currently reading about. This helps them expand on their learning rather than curtailing it. I am not quite sure how users will ever find the "Year in Film" pages if these are eliminated. As to the Easter Egg nature of them a simple program rewrite would show the entire link rather than just the year. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (as author of the template) - User:John's description of the template makes it appear somewhat ominous, so it's worth pointing out what this simple but handy template does. The Filmyear template, which is most often used in its shortened form "fy", simply expands from {{fy|year}} to [[year in film|year]]. That's it, it's simply a quick way to generate a link to a "year in film" article. It's used on about 1000 film-related articles currently, primarily to link the release dates of films to that year in film, to provide for the reader additional information and context about what was happening the the film world that year. There's nothing in the least Easter eggish about it: when the reader rolls the cursor over the linked year, such as {{fy|1954}}, he or she see "1954 in film". There's nothing hidden at all.
This nomination is apparently based on the idea that the linking of years is deprecated throughout Wikipedia under any and all circumstances, and therefore this template is no longer needed. This is, of course, not the case at all. While the general, non-specific and habitual linking of years is now deprecated, it continues to be the case that years can be linked when they provide additional information and context which cannot be included in the article they're reading -- in order words, when they provide value to the reader. It's clear that linking a film's release date to an article on that year in film does provide that value, and this template is a handy aid to folks working on film-related articles when they need to do that. There's no reason for it to be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but recommend setting up documentation at {{filmyear}} to use it in the proper context. I think that if it is used too subtly, it can be perceived as an Easter egg, but I do believe that sentences can be written to suggest the relevance of a year-in-film link. For example, linking that it came out in France in 2009 after coming out in 2008 may not be so relevant, but it would be relevant to link to it if the film's performance in the year is relevant (such as The Dark Knight kicking all kinds of butt in 2008). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much in favor of any improvement in the template's (non-existant) documentation. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the arguments that was given in the removal of the date link was that linking to just a specific year, eg 1940 was too general and, because it led to a very broad article about events of that year, it wasn't particularly relevant. I don't think the aim was ever to remove all date links, and this is an example of a more specific and potentially useful means of linking. I agree with the comments made above. Rossrs (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I will conditionally withdraw this nomination as soon as/if some notice gets put onto the template, warning people to not use this so liberally. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a "warning" is appropriate, per se, as much as an explication of the way in which the template should be utilized. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a disclaimer to the documentation, saying:

Note: This template should not be used indiscriminately. Please see WP:DATES for further information about the proper circumstances in which years can be linked using this template.

Suggestions? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe examples of what circumstances apply and what do not? Perhaps something that will be fairly uncontroversial, but there will probably be a gray area where usage goes by a case-by-case basis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that I'm not quite sure where consensus lies at this moment. I think that film release dates should be non-controversial, as a result of the recent discussion on WT:Film, and there was, perhaps, a weaker agreement about birth and death dates of actors. I see it as legitimate for "active years" (or whatever that entry is called) listings in the infobox, but I'm not certain how many agree with me there.

Is there a specific section of WP:MOSFILM that covers, or will cover, this topic? Perhaps the disclaimer could link to it as well? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a little section in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines right here. Feel free to expand. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded it, but, obviously, more people need to take a look at it. In the meantime, I've altered the link on the template documentation to point to it. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, limited as discussed above. Release dates of films are important and should be linked, and this is the template for it. DGG (talk) 04:56, 19 October 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:Homeimprovement1 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 --Tiptoety ^talk 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Homeimprovement1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned (I just merged the only three existing Home Improvement episodes to the LoE due to their scope, but even then this template was a bad idea.) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as none of these episodes have their own articles any more, it's entirely redundant to List of Home Improvement episodes. Terraxos (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant template is redundant. --tennis man 20:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte, the template is no longer in usage.--Free way guy 23:25, 20 October 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:Deptford Trilogy 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. Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deptford Trilogy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant, providing no additional information (just lists the names of three books).Irregulargalaxies (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not enough articles to justify a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have 5 articles in this template. keep. --Free way guy 23:26, 20 October 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:ZPCAS MinMeetings 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 Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ZPCAS MinMeetings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wholly redlinked after a year. If recreated, suggest "ZPCAS ministerial meetings" as a less cryptic name. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely useless at the present time. If the articles are created, it can always be recreated, but there is no point in having a template that consists solely of red links. Terraxos (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte, all crimson links and none of those pages exist.--Free way guy 23:27, 20 October 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:Supergiant-star-stub 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 Wrong forum. Despite being incorrectly formed, this is a stub tempate, and as such is being discussed at WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supergiant-star-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Someone else tried to speedy this, but it was declined. This is not a stub template, though it claims to be one. There is no associated category, and it is not supported by the appropriate WikiProjects. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 05:08, 18 October 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:Cheyne 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. Garion96 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just simply not enough here for a template. Singer has released all of one album and it was 4 years ago. Very limited use. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough articles for a navigational template to be useful. Most of these link to each other already anyway. Terraxos (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 5 articles is enough.--Free way guy 23:28, 20 October 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.