Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 12

< September 11	September 13 >

September 12 edit

Template:Super Mario Bros. Super Show episode 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! 07:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super Mario Bros. Super Show episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is no longer used in any articles. TTN (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:59, 13 September 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:My Name Is Earl 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! 07:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My Name Is Earl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template only contains three articles relating to the series and one unrelated article. It is easy enough to navigate from the main article. TTN (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough there for a template IMO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was planning to nominate it by myself after deletion of Earl's list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 18 September 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:Cro 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! 07:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Most of the links just lead to the main article, while the rest are just pointless and unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the links are redirects. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:02, 13 September 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 Dresden Files season 1 episode list 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! 07:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Dresden Files season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not used in any articles and it serves no purpose. TTN (talk) 21:16, 12 September 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:Pokenum 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. delldot ∇. 19:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was originally used because it was a pain to go through hundreds of articles just to change a number. Now that most of the Pokemon articles have been merged (493 --> 25 or so), this is pretty useless. TTN (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since almost all the Pokémon articles were merged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:03, 13 September 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:SWATKats1 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 delldot ∇. 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SWATKats1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This no longer serves as a navigation tool as all the articles point to one list. TTN (talk) 20:49, 12 September 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.

IUCN Red List templates 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. I did not see any discussion on the nom's listification idea, but I'm happy to undelete those if anyone wants to turn them into lists. delldot ∇. 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Red List Albania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Algeria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Belgium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Bulgaria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Croatia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Czech Rep (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Denmark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Estonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Georgia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Greenland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Hungary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Iceland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Italy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Latvia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Lithuania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Montenegro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Morocco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List N Korea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Netherlands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List S Korea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List St Pierre Miquelon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Red List United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Due to the fact that the distribution of species rarely follows modern political boundaries, this series of templates carries with it the potential for tremendous template clutter. See, for example, the article "European sea sturgeon", which contains 23 of these templates. Template:Taxobox, which appears or should appear in every article about a species, already contains parameters (see Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Conservation status) that automatically produce links to IUCN Red List and the appropriate conservation status article (in the case of the European sea sturgeon, that article would be Critically endangered species).

The intended function of these templates (to list IUCN Red List species by country) would be better accomplished by lists rather than templates. In fact, I fully support listifying to "List of IUCN Red List species in [Country]" the three templates that contain more than one link: {{Red List Canada}}, {{Red List Greenland}}, and {{Red List United States}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reconsider. The aim is admirable, but the current implementation is bulky and leads to horrible template clutter; European sea sturgeon is a perfect example of the resulting clutter. Unfortunately, it raises additional issues, such as potential conflicts over which country's templates should be added so specific animal articles (how would the European sea sturgeon be an IUCN species in the Czech Republic, a landlocked country, is one example. How about the fact that the article states that the European sea sturgeon is not found along the coasts of the Black Sea, yet it contains the IUCN template for Georgia? Rhetorical questions, since the answers can be found on Fishbase). It's also a maintenance nightmare with dozens and dozens of changes required when the IUCN reclassifies a species or when adding new species to Wikipedia. The IUCN's recent downgrading of the Humpback Whale from vulnerable to LC is a recent example that comes to mind. In my mind, the potential benefits (and they do exist) are far outweighed by the potential conflicts, inaccuracies, and bloat that could result. There may be better ways to accomplish the same purpose, such as with some well-coordinated editing of the {{taxobox}} template, for example (which still would be far from easy and far from conflict-free). Neil916 (Talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks like a lot of hard work by someone. Before it all is deleted based on only a few people commenting, it would help to have some more details. Who created all these templates? (from a glance, it looks like one editor). Where they all notified? Any suggestions as to why they have not commented here? Beyond a post on their talk page, it might help to send them an email and note in this discussion the extra effort in trying to get a reply from the template creators. -- Suntag (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know why the creator has not commented, but I can answer the other questions. All of these templates were created by Super cyclist (talk · contribs), who was notified of this discussion just after it was posted to TfD. Also, Super cyclist has edited (see contributions) since the posting of this discussion, and so presumably has seen the TfD notice. I hope that helps. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, in my original proposal, the three templates that have a lot of links ({{Red List Canada}}, {{Red List Greenland}}, {{Red List United States}}) would be converted into a list before being deleted, so that the effort is not lost. The other templates are mostly similar to each other, except that the flag icon and country names are changed, with the majority containing only a link to European sea sturgeon. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the template is useful. In addition, many countries have very strict laws and practices on managing the population of species on the red list. The conservation status has nothing to do with the location. And I don't see the nominator's reason meet the TfD's reason to delete a template OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Maintenance nightmare, plus the article European sea sturgeon right now looks ridiculous. The templates take up more space than the entire article! Garion96 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think deleting all 1-link entries is not an issue at all. It's obvious. I think an admnin has to delete these as a start and then we discuss for the rest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because it hasn't been updated yet completely. Many one link templates will have more links if it keeps up. So template clutter will still be there. Plus as said before, it is a maintenance nightmare and it doesn't give much info normal text could provide as well. Garion96 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 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.