Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17 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 Speedily deleted for many reasons stated. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-school edit

Template:Uw-school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

very bitey template that is unnecessarily threatening. MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD:T1 or T2, if you ask me... --MCB (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the reasons in the nomination, it doesn't even tell the victim what they did wrong (just "We can tell on you!"). Also, it either requires off-wiki knowledge of the user or can only be used on IP users, which either way makes it fairly useless. I don't think T2 applies (we do have Wikipedia:Abuse reports, after all), not sure about T1, but WP:SNOW might apply eventually. Anomie ⚔ 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though lord knows sometimes I'd love to use it, it is bitey and fairly useless unless it will actually be backed up with action. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the template because I reverted three vandalism edits from schools in five minutes, and thought it would be a good idea to scare the hooligans away. Should I change it to read something like "Your school has been informed about your disruptive editing"? It'd be less commonly used then - but still useful, and more scary. Thanks, Fahadsadah (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your error was in thinking it would be a good idea to "scare the hooligans away"; WP:BITE in fact calls for the opposite. Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals might also be worth reading, especially if you note that threats (empty or otherwise) fall into the same category of "strong reactions" being warned against there. Anomie ⚔ 16:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Anomie, most school IPs talkpages are clearly marked. Fahadsadah (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the only use of this template would be on school IP talk pages or in cases where you have off-wiki knowledge about the editor and where they edit from. It would be useless for anyone who registers a throwaway account to vandalize from. Anomie ⚔ 16:42, 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:Case Closed cite 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. Samuel Curtis, I'm happy to move this into your userspace for you so we can keep the page history intact for the GFDL. Let me know if you want it and I'll undelete it and move it. delldot ∇. 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Case Closed cite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary duplicate of {{cite book}}. I imagine it probably makes referencing easier, but it is still totally unnecessary and redundant. I see no precedent for making custom citation templates for each series of books on Wikipedia, and no valid reason to make such a "cheat" rather than just do like most other series do and keep a copy/paste list somewhere that is easier to customize, if needed, particularly when this template does not encourage proper referencing needed for any articles using it to achieve GA or FA status (i.e. it includes no page numbers, no full publication information, etc). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What full publication information? Page number, I can simply add it as an option to the template. (But then, I personally believe the chapter number is enough, especially when page code aren't printed on manga.) There's only so much I can get from the copyright page of the manga.

OTOH, if you still are not satisified, I would rather move back to userspace.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have three plans here, and I am open for all of those:

Just delete it.
Move it back to userspace (where it originally belonged), or
Editing it to implement all functions of {{cite book}}.

Give your opinions within today in CDT and I would do that right away.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Page numbers are printed on every manga I have ever read. There are, however, quite a few series with no named or identifiable chapters. Its also missing basic publication info, like the date, etc. It is also specific to a single series. To use it on others, it would have to be replicated. There are nearly 2000 manga series with articles on Wikipedia, and its grows daily. Do we really want to encourage 2000 manga citation templates be created to make it "easy" to cite when there is already a perfectly good, functioning one that is better able to handle the need to change info between series? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all current uses with {{cite book}} and Delete -- unnecessary duplicate of existing functionality, as far as I can tell. Besides, once you set up a good cite using the real template, it's easy to copy it for the next reference. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...many articles will even keep a list of them all on a talk page or talkarchive. Just copy, add the page and chapter info, a quote if needed, and go.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Quasirandom - this template has annoyed me for a long time, but never enough to do anything about it. There are plenty better alternatives to the use of this template, as has been pointed out above. And for the record, even if this template is kept and additional functionality added, it should be changed to a transclusion of {{cite book}} with the generic details already provided - this is what was done with {{ann manga}}, {{ann anime}}, etc. when {{ann}} was created. —Dino guy 1000 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only categorize in Category:Specific source templates which has lots of templates for citing specific books. It is easy to use and may encourage addition of more references from editors who are intimidated by complex templates like {{Cite book}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 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.

Exit 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 subst and delete delldot ∇. 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) exit list in Orange County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ventura Freeway (US 101) exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) exit list in Los Angeles County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:San Bernardino Freeway (I-215) exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) exit list in San Bernardino County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) exit list in Los Angeles County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Redwood Highway (US 199) major intersections in Del Norte County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Redwood Highway (US 101) major intersections and exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pasadena Freeway exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hollywood Freeway (SR 170) exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Eastshore Freeway (I-80) exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bayshore Freeway (US 101) exit list in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bayshore Freeway (US 101) exit list in San Francisco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bayshore Freeway (I-80) exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Santa Ana Freeway (US 101) exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Golden State Freeway exit list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Goes against Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage, used only twice, etc. Also by precedent at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 15#Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list. Note to closing admin: Subst before deletion. Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 15#Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list. --NE2 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subst all into pages and Delete all per TFD referenced by NE2 above — master son^{T - C} 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep:I'm totally opposed on deleting those tempaltes so as the Hollywood US 101 exit list. I do see some opposes with See Hollywood Freeway. Please see WT:CASH. This is not a valid rations to delete. Please keep those tempaltes.--57Freeways 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Templates are not mean't to be used once. — master son^{T - C} 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above --63.199.51.191 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Freewayguy. --Must eat worms (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with using it once. It is built to sub See Golden State Freeway to avoid confuse poeple, and handwrite it twice on multiples of pages doubles people to update list and most people only update one.--57 Free ways 23:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, what's the problem??--57 Free ways 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splat5572 (talk · contribs) made some of those tempaltes.--57 Free ways 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above. Plus it is simply an eyesore and not of any real use. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and that's really the only use these could have. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exit lists (without these goofy templates) are supported by WP:USRD and WP:ELG and are in several FAs - I hope you are not suggesting that these be thrown out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, outside the highway field, there are tables such as Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway#Extensions and Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney#Stations. --NE2 08:30, 25 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.