Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 25

< September 24	September 26 >

September 25 edit

Template:D.Gray Man 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The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) --erachima talk 22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D.Gray Man (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After multiple merges and redirects, the template is only used on four pages. It has been said that strongly linking the articles would be more effective. Itz just drama? 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as the person who most recently resuggested this deletion (the nom originally suggested it earlier this month). —Dino guy 1000 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ——Dino guy 1000 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Each of those three supporting pages should have their own section in the series page, so the proper template to use is therefore {{main}}. Toss in the category for the four of them and you have the necessary navigation covered. Speaking of which, someone should speedy that empty "characters" category. --erachima talk 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it has a purpose now that the individual season lists exist. So Keep. --erachima talk 03:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ — unnecessary with only three lists past the main article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – with the season lists now present, this template is fine. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the template has been updated since its deletion nom with two additional lists (for individual episode season lists). Because of this, I make my vote a ~~weak delete~~, and I really wouldn't be against keeping the template [for] now. —Dino guy 1000 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the other changed votes above. Let my twice-changed vote be a testament to my own inexperience with deletion discussions. =P —Dino guy 1000 17:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-needed template. abf /talk to me/ 16:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I withdraw my nomination as per above. Itz just drama? 22:29, 1 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:Information about Spain and sub-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 delldot ∇. 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Information about Spain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spanish language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spanish History (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geography of Spain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spanish Government and Politics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Traditions of Spain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spanish art (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spanish Language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Design test, unused, outdated, superseded by {{Spain topics}}. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Useless, redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all superseded and unless. abf /talk to me/ 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We have a better template now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:31, 30 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:Consentblock 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 ∇. 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inactive blocking template, no reason to retain for historic value. MBisanz ^talk 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A simple example that one doesn't really need to see to understand (for anyone reading the past discussions relating to the idea of block requests). -- Ned Scott 04:08, 26 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:RadioByFrequency 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. Going to let a bot remove the template. This will give people some time to list this at AfD if they'd wish. This is the best way to access all of the pages for tagging purposes. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I removed the speedy from this page, as it was not a valid CSD -- however the concern raised by User:ESanchez013 was "it is a template that is ridden with redlinks and does not seem to serve a purpose other than to create a large amount of lists". I do agree with this and think it should be deletedSee comment below. Kesac (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the templae, but all the "placeholder" articles should be deleted as no content. --NE2 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure the proper place for this debate. IMHO the fate of the template should be linked to the fate of the bulk of the frequency pages, 90% of which are currently placeholders. They've flooded the Short Pages reports on the Tools Server, and I've been working to bump them off of it. But the key question to me is not whether the template should or should not be deleted, or whether the placeholders should be deleted, but rather it's whether this whole mass of lists is a benefit to the project if/when completed. I can see it's usefullness, but really only marginally. And this is not the right place for a debate over the whole scheme. But I'm not really sure where the correct place *is* for that discussion. Village Pump somewhere? WP:AN? A mass AFD? - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see at least two uses: disambiguation, if you know the frequency but not the call latters, and as a resource for DXing. --NE2 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both those purposes do look useful. I personally am willing to grant the user a degree of latitude at this point, assuming that we continue to see progress on this. This is a massive effort that the user has put in front of himself, and if it tapers off 10% done, then this whole thing will be AFD bait. But if he continues to make progress, then I at least am willing to overlook a few placeholders and red links on the way to a useful set of lists. I do know that, even as a Wikignome myself, this is an effort on a scale well above what I would be willing to attempt. If he does complete it, I may hit him with a Barnstar or two. Anyway, for now then I would say Keep on the template. If, in a week or two there has been little progress on the whole thing, then my opinion would likely be different. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have gotten rid of the red links --FMBlogger (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation is great, but based on pages that have actually been filled in thus far, they're creating more disambiguation problems than they're solving. The stations have been listed using only the base of the call sign, without regard to whether there's a '-FM' attached to the actual call sign or a '(AM)' or '(FM)' has been attached to the article here. My Wikipedia Cleaner watch list is blowing up with new incoming links to disambiguation pages that I've just spent the last month cleaning. This is the exact same problem as happened several weeks ago when a different user created a bunch of radio stations by format by state templates. Urgh ... Mlaffs (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went through all the templates and made them point specifically to FM or AM so that they don't go to a disambiguation page. I will continue to go through and repoint -FM or (AM) links back if the article exists in the other direction. Let me know if this suffices. Thanks. --FMBlogger (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, all that noise in my Cleaner is gone now, which is fantastic. You've probably ended up with the opposite problem, though, which is that you now have a lot of redlinks where there isn't a tag on the actual article. It's going to be a hassle going through to get them pointing to the right place, but it's doable. You might want to attach a {{Template:Underconstruction}} to each page until you're done. Mlaffs (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I originally nominated this for deletion, the template mostly consisted of redlinks and articles with no content. However a lot of progress has been made since then. I now think this should be kept, and see where things go from here. Kesac (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for what it's worth. The articles linked from this template are all set up as disambiguation pages. There shouldn't be a need for a template to aid in navigating amongst disambiguation pages, given their intended purpose. If these were set up as lists instead, then that would be another story, and the template could be useful. This is not in any way a statement on the underlying articles, with which I'm fine. Mlaffs (talk) 17:36, 24 September 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! 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This debate would be better elsewhere; but surely categories are the way to collect lists of stations on the same frequency; with parent categories for ranges, e.g. "100.0-100.9"? I'm also concerned that these pages need to be "globalised". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't disambiguate with categories, though, which is how these pages are set up. Agree, though, they're clearly a work in progress. Mlaffs (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some frequencies that are not known in the U.S. For example, 87.8.

--FMBlogger (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to see the use for a template of disambiguation tables. JPG-GR (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete' - no value per above --Spencer1151 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see any value to disambiguate the disambiguation. I agree with Mlaffs above. --DavidTheLion (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Template has TOO many links on it. Agree with JPG-GR that it has no value. --1110khz (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Not useful. --BoyBomber (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for such a template. --TruthSaid0 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Template too bulky and user did not discuss with WPRS project prior to implementing such sweeping changes. User should be blocked too. --RoomDownUnitStage (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not needed. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think a category would be better. ~~However, I would ask the closing admin to look into the number of editors for which voting here is the only activity they have done in months. There's a very interesting coincidence going on.~~ (User:Thatcher is the rescue yet again) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Striking my above Keep, and switching to Delete given the recent developments. Given the creator has just melted down via massive sock-puppetry, I see little chance now of this whole thing getting completed. And a partially completed effort in this is worse than nothing. I wonder what should be the next step for all the individual frequency pages. A mass AFD? That'll take a good bit of work for whoever has to tag them all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a thought in this regard over at the AN/I page. Mlaffs (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honest thoughts: Despite the shenanigans going on around the content, the content organization itself is valuable. The potential breath and depth of the world wide consumer radio bands are defined and the content is well organized. This one template takes care of the almost the entire AM/FM spectrum and allows one to drill down to specific stations. spryde | talk 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not been a fan of classifying this type of thing by frequency. My opinion is the same for categories by TV channel number. I don't see value in this. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this is one of those things that seems like a better idea in principle than it actually is in practice. It's of at best minimal value in actually helping a reader to locate a station whose call sign they don't know, the usual rationale cited for creating lists of this type: if you know the city, there are media-by-city and radio-stations-by-state/province lists for that; if you know a brand name, you have to click on each station one by one until you find the one that matches (and there's not always only one, either, so it might still be useless); and if you don't know any of those details a frequency list won't help you one measly bit.In truth, the only useful purpose the lists serve is in preventing people from trying to redirect the frequency number to their own local station on that frequency. And I'm utterly bored to tears with the interminable process of cleaning up the Canadian entries that FMBlogger added from a source that was in some cases two full decades out of date. Seriously, I'm tempted to offer Wikiprizes for the wittiest answer to the question of why on earth I had to remove CKO transmitters (d. 1989!) from these lists. But I digress — this discussion isn't the place to debate whether the lists should be deleted or not, but at the bare minimum there's no reason for a template to link disambiguation pages to each other. I'm not convinced that we need the lists, but if consensus is that they're worthwhile then a category is sufficient organization for them. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 1 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:St. Louis Rams seasons 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 merge. I have kept the seasons template as a redirect to preserve the history for the GFDL. delldot ∇. 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Louis Rams seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I placed this up for deletion before n 2008-09-04, but an admin decided to keep it even though a debate didn't take place. The person thought it should be kept because "there are lots of templates like this" and "the idea is to not take up as much space." The reason I am nominating this template for deletion is because {{St. Louis Rams}} already contains this information and is a redundent template. First off, just because there are other templates like this one is not a reason to keep an article and/or template. Secondly, the point of navigation templates is for the reader to read other articles related to the one they are currently reading. It would be better to merge this into {{St. Louis Rams}} so that they can navigate to more articles. If the idea is to not take up as much space then the seasons section of the team template (along with all the other NFL teams) should be removed, since it is taking up space. Yet, I don't believe that to be the case. Once again, I suggest this template merged to the St. Louis Rams template. Pinkkeith (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. Just so everyone knows, I'm the one who closed this debate originally. The debate is here. Just as a comment here, if this one is deleted I think we need to take in consideration everything in this cat because all of the templates there are also incorporated into the team's templates (i.e. Template:Green Bay Packers seasons is incorporated in Template:Green Bay Packers). I have no problem with that since I do see the nominator's point. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom and precedent. matt91486 (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom and precedent. However, before you start merging them all, I would suggest a mention at the project page page or somewhere people will know what's going on. Let one complete and then go after the rest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 29 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.