Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

April 27 edit

Template:CanadianCharts 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 delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template only links to three articles, but numerous user sandbox pages, and the only transclusions are on the user sandbox pages. Aspects (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sandboxes are blatant misinformation (i.e., fictional charts). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:51, 28 April 2009 (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:EuroHitRadioNav 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 speedy delete (G8) --Magioladitis (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused templates now all of the articles it was included in have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number ones of European Hit Radio Top 40 (1995). Aspects (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EuroHitRadioTop40Nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Herzog Kinski 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 delete. delldot ∇. 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Herzog Kinski (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While this maybe the greatest director/actor partnership in cinema history, it's a variation of an actor having a template for his/her filmography (or part of). previous discussions show that there is a consensus to delete these. Lugnuts (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Director Herzog has a template of his own, as he should, but an additional one citing his work with actor Kinski is unnecessary and could prompt the creation of templates for Wyler Davis, Allen Farrow, Howard Hanks, Scott Crowe, and the like! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detete- {{Werner Herzog films}} is plenty sufficient for navigation on any of these pages. Staecker (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actor-filmography templates are discouraged. Robofish (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2009 (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:2009 swine flu outbreak chart 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 procedurally closed - no longer in templatespace and compromise seems reasonable. –xeno ^talk 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 swine flu outbreak chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is really of use for only one article and a template is not needed for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the rationale given on the talk page Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak was that because it is a {{current}} event, updating the table would be easier if it were split to a subpage/childpage, and that it would be remerged when it was no longer current. So this is in effect, a {{current}} template because it is likely to be edited frequently. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to subpage of main article. I agree with the reasoning above but that could all be served by having this table in a subpage of the article for the short term. Later it should be merged into the article itself. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:48, 27 April 2009 (GMT)
Withdrawn. My views now correspond directly with 76.66.196.218's comment. Mod.torrentrealm (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't thinks its necessary to delete this template. We can delete the template once the epi/pandemic is over. Barnaby dawson (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Editing is much more better with that template as the figures changes quickly. -- Grochim (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is a lot easier to edit the template on a seperate page than on the article. Smartse (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I believe that this table serves a very important function in these early stages of the outbreak. It makes the article easy to edit and provides a useful reference to the spread of the disease on a global scale. It should be considered for deletion at a later stage when the outbreak has (hopefully) halted. magnius (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Copied it to subpage of main article - Yes, I was bold and used (what seemed to me to be) common sense to avoid a lengthy and unnecessary debate. By copying the template's content to a subpage, it still produces exactly the same effect as it did as a template. The template version should be deleted soon (or redirected and deleted after a week or so) to avoid people accidentally editing in both locations.
Instead of {{2009 swine flu outbreak chart}}

You now use {{2009 swine flu outbreak/Chart}} (note the added colon and slash and the capital letter C)

This gives both the desired flexibility in editing and moves this obvious article information out of template space and into article space. The best of both worlds. There may never even be a reason to merge the information later if this is done.

Note: If everyone hates my taking this initiative, then just point the main article back to the template (remove the colon, the slash, and change the capital to a small letter again). Hopefully nobody will hate this. Sometimes it's difficult to conceptualize these things until you see them in action. Thanks Spaully for the suggestion. Good one! --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 12:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC) (Updated 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) following the copy)[reply]
I just realized that copy/paste of the information was not ideal, because of losing the edit history of the template. I'm going to redirect the main article back to the template, but leave the subpage as-is (but with a notice) for a demonstration of my suggestion. If moving to a subpage is the ultimate decision, then my current subpage should be deleted and the template Moved to the new location to preserve the edit history and any talk pages. I didn't want to disrupt anything, but created a new problem in the process. Sorry about that. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 13:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To fix cut-and-paste mistakes, you can make a request at WP:SPLICE 76.66.196.218 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Wait a minute though. There becomes an issue with the v.d.e at the bottom of the table then as the template {{Tnavbar}} is designed for templates only. I am looking into how to get round this. Also, this should be moved to 2009 swine flu outbreak/Table as it is not a chart. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:10, 27 April 2009 (GMT)
  - Does the VDE really matter? It was manually added, it's not part of Tnavbar or any custom navbar from a template. rootology (C)(T) 13:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the {{Tnavbar}} can be subst:ed and then manually edited one time to fix any incorrect links. As to WP:SPLICE, thanks. But I think it is a cleaner solution to just delete my demo and then move the original into its place. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 13:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest it is moved to 2009 swine flu outbreak/Table. It should have been described as a table to begin with.
    - Also, I have edited a substed v.d.e and can implement it once moved. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:33, 27 April 2009 (GMT)
This shouldn't be an article subpage because there are no subpages in the article namespace. Everything in the article namespace should be an article, to do otherwise causes problems with orphaned and uncategorized articles - if it's in the article namespace, it needs the things all articles need like incoming article links (not transclusions) and categories. Stuff that's meant only to be transcluded belongs in the template namespace. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This was a great idea to break this off during the time period of rapid updates to a separate page. Is this really an unrequired TFD simply as it was placed in Template space? This could easily be used in the various growing subarticles, as well. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Just because it's current doesn't mean a single-use template is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the above idea of just sub paging? Putting it into the page as raw code is sort of the point. rootology (C)(T) 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Subpaging it would make it just as easy to maintain and no mess to clean up/bicker over at the end of this whole outbreak. --Blasterman 95 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be archived. I moved it over to the sub-page as there is no possible issue with the content itself, just it's name space. I deleted the old cross-space redirect as wholly uncontroversial under IAR. rootology (C)(T) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (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:CrapArticle 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 speedily closing and userfying (without redirect). Doesn't belong in template space and needs to get out immediately. If it's the satire that's at issue, take the whole lot to MFD. –xeno ^talk 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I originally just T3 speedied this when I probably should not have because I don't think this technically falls under that category (my apologies as I'm far from an expert on templates, and did not realize there was another necessary component of a T3 speedy beyond "not employed in any useful fashion"). Instead I restored it and am putting it up for TfD to be on the safe side, though if it is in fact a speedy candidate in some fashion then by all means go through with it.

This is a joke template created in association with Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron (a joke page, and one which itself is perhaps problematic). This template has already been used to deface a featured article, Barack Obama, and it seems obvious that it could be used for this same purpose in the future. Joke or not it has no business being here. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so mark it as humorous or suggest that it be moved to userspace. I don't see a compelling reason to delete the template. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's supposed to be humourous and is hardly disruptive. Eusebeus (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the first time I have disagreed with bigtimepeace and agreed with Eusebus on anything. I think it is important to be able to laugh at yourself. Ikip (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just had to support this MfD. Hilarious! Durova^Charge! 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rescuse - I should probably point out I've just userfied the pages this template directs to. [1]. –xeno ^talk 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is this template redundant as its legitimate purpose is covered by any DB or XfD tag, it's attempting to canvassing by specifically asking for Delete votes. I too admit that it's sort of funny but it doesn't really have any place here. OlYeller^Talktome 01:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - humour doesn't belong in article space. You might find this template funny, but it shouldn't be used on an actual article. (Also, adding the 'Flagged for Rescue' template to this template was really confusing - for a moment, I couldn't tell which template was the one actually under consideration for deletion.) Robofish (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (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.