Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 27

< October 26	October 28 >

October 27 edit

Template:AddMoreLinks 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! 06:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is basically unused, and I can't think of any situation where we need more external links. Conti|✉ 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't think of a case where this would need to be used. Just encourages spam. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only occasion I can think of where an article needs more external links is if a user personally knows of a useful one to add. At that point, obviously, they can add it themselves - there don't seem to be any situations where an article generally needs more nonspecific links. ~ mazca ^t|c 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reword as a request to links to primary sources 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles never "require" more extlinks. This encourages something that it shouldn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 4 November 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:Bulgarian National Top 40 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 discussion was G8 by Garden, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps •HELP)} 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulgarian National Top 40 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian National Top 40. Funk Junkie (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G8 Template whose "parent" doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:42, 28 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:Creation-evolution table 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! 07:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creation-evolution table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not in use on any articles. It had been nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Creation-evolution table, but since it is a template, I closed that discussion and re-nominated it here instead. I recommend a delete, or if the template creator wants it, userfy it. The previous discussion appears below in italics. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template, and not something that belongs here -- Ben (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this have gone to TfD? Oh well, delete anyway. Whatever the merits of the idea itself, if this hasn't found any use since 2005, it's not going to. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misuse of template space, synthesis either way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More an article than a template. It could be moved to article space, and allowed to see if it survives an AFD in article space, or deleted right now. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to user space - I userfied this, since I'm the creator. Is this okay? If not, please let me know so I can make a backup copy before you guys delete it. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:10, 29 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:WBSPensCoach 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! 07:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template for the head coaches of the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins, a minor league team in the American Hockey League. Previous discussion at WP:HOCKEY has determined that templates of the like should be reserved for NHL teams, deeming the minor leagues not notable enough. As it stands, two of the six coaches listed made it to the NHL as a head coach, and two of them are current assistant coaches. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I'm not a huge fan of these templates at the major league level either. That said, below the major league level, this becomes a slippery slope. There have been hundreds of minor league teams, and hundreds of major-junior league teams. A template for each would start to become a major clutter. An article like Mike Keenan is already ridiculous enough with NHL only templates, never mind someone who bounces around the lower levels. Reso lute 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the history of minor league teams is just a rich as those of the majors. The minors are also more embedded at the local level which helps identify smaller municipalities. Besides the goal of an online encylopedia should be to open up as many doors to a subject as possible. Every major athlete or coach got their start in the minors. The WBS franchise is only 10 seasons old. In those ten seasons 2 coaches already became NHL coaches, with Therrien taking the Pittsburgh Penguins to the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals. 3 other WBS coaches have already taken the franchise to the Calder Cup Finals. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is disputing this, but how does a template tell this story? Reso lute 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough content for a template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EMBED as nav boxes should only be for links that would otherwise already be linked to in a perfect article for whatever subject that this box would be placed on. On any of these coaches articles, the other coaches except for perhaps the one that came before and the one that came after, would not be linked to in a perfect article. -Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 29 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:Dispute undo 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! 06:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dispute undo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Gross violation of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. We should be encouraging personalized communication, not providing more ways to avoid it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is an essay. More importantly Template:Dispute undo is not in violation of the message of this essay. The essay cautions editors that templates intended for explaining a rule is inappropriate when one can assume familiarity with the relevant rules. Since the template is not intended for explaining rules it does not violate the essay. Further, most of the content of the template is unspecified, so it can be personalized. The only thing it fixes is a message amounting to: "I don't understand your reason for your undo on <page>, please clarify." That said, the form of the template forces the person placing it to talk about himself in the third person, and the color should IMHO be changed. Taemyr (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree here. It's simply much more polite to notify people with a real message and not a template. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it an easy way to alert to the user that a they have a problem, many new users have difficulty alerting to other members that they disagree with a user without simply blantly shouting meaninless insults. (As described in Documentaion.Spitfire19 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Templates can't replace actual communication. --Conti|✉ 15:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template serves the same purpose as templates in Microsoft Powerpoint. It is simply a seperate way to present information. Of course experienced members like Carnildo could do by himself what this template is design to help other users accomplish. This template is designed for new Wikipedia editors and IP editors and should be taken as such.Spitfire19 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't get how using a template makes communication easier for newbies. Is writing "{{subst:Dispute undo|Lorem ipsum|I don't like your revert.|~~~~}}" easier to write than "I don't like your revert at [[Lorem ipsum]]. ~~~~"? --Conti|✉ 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be for the person using the template to decideSpitfire19 (Talk) 22:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm good enough in thinking like a newbie (I've been one once!), and from that I'd say that using the template (or templates in general, actually) is one of the more complicated things you can do in Wikipedia. --Conti|✉ 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. As far as making things easier for a noob, how would the noob even know this template exists in the first place? Reso lute 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last comment by Resolute. I totally agree with you. This concept seems rather ironic, and counter-productive. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 07:33, 29 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:Archived template debate 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 G7 by Orangemike , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archived template debate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{tfd-top}} and {{tfd-bottom}} --Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up this new information. I was unaware that those two templates existed(It's not @ top of page of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion) and that is why I created my own version of these templates. Besides, parameters don't except more than a couple hundred digits, so you're free to delete.

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.