Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 28

< April 27	April 29 >

April 28 edit

Template:H.I.V.E Character 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 ∇. 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H.I.V.E Character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Intentioned for a single article. {{Infobox character}} can do the job if necessary. Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 04:09, 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:Infobox ThunderCats 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 ∇. 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ThunderCats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Covered by other templates if necessary. Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make individual articles for ThunderCats heroes and villains but haven't gotten around to it. Would it be all right to leave the template a bit longer? Cale (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I based my "vote" on a fact that you should especially take into account: WP:N coverage criteria typically restrain the number of such articles to just several and ThunderCats doesn't strike me as an incredibly popular series. You should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are too few potential candidates for this category. {{Infobox Character}} should do alright. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and redundant to other templates. Robofish (talk) 04:09, 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:MonasticHouses Cheshire England 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 Move to List of monastic houses in Cheshire. delldot ∇. 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MonasticHouses Cheshire England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article, its crossing the line between what should be in article space and template space. by the look of List of abbeys and priories in England where it is being used, it appears to not be the only one. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought this would be better to be converted into a list; it has potential as a list but IMO much less (little) potential as a template. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subst all such templates in that article. These aren't navboxes or infoboxes, this is article content, and it belongs in article space. PC78 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Move the template to List of monastic houses in Cheshire. A list of monastic houses in Cheshire is certainly a valid topic and the template is already in the format of a list because of the way it's used in List of abbeys and priories in England. This could be done for all the templates on that page and List of abbeys and priories in England could be left as a directory page. I think a straightforward deletion of this template (or others like it) would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Nev1 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support this suggestion. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps the decision when closing this discussion, I am happy to perform all the moves I have proposed (and there will be about 40 moves). Nev1 (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nev1's proposal above. Robofish (talk) 04:08, 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:Bridge under construction 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 ∇. 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bridge under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As usual, a current event template about something that rarely, if ever, is actually a current event by our standards. We don't need to notify our readers that a bridge is currently under construction (or rather, we do that in the lead of the article), and information about bridges under construction is usually not exactly changing rapidly or dramatically. If I would apply the guidelines for current events to this template, I'm pretty sure that not a single article would be left using it. --Conti|✉ 10:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Let's see some examples of how "dramatically things change:
- Take a look in Hoover Dam Bypass in its revision history. Article was tagged in December 2007. Since then only 20 edits!
- Stonecutters Bridge. Article tagged in August 2006! Since only less than 60 edits (in 33 months), only 11 in 2008.
- Golden Ears Bridge. Article tagged in April 2006! 15 edits in 2009 (including vandalism).
- etc etc.....

I just picked the three first and I didn't look further. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pointless. Garion96 (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pelješac Bridge is quite unlikely to be built in the next year and the rapid changes here resort to some low-key protests from the neighboring country which appear once a year. Yet, it is a typical candidate for this template. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Abstain. I'm sorry, but:

How is this a "current event template"? It puts the article into Category:Bridges under construction, which has nothing to do with Category:Current events and its subcategories.
How is this different from other temporal templates such as {{Future airport}}, {{Future arena}}, {{Future building}}, {{Future hospital}}, {{Future tunnel}}, etc., all with similar appearance and purpose? Should all of these be deleted too? GregorB (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Because I fail to see the point of a notice which might be on an article for years. That info should be in the lead, not on a pretty template. Especially when the content of the article in question does not really "dramatically changes". Garion96 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content would hardly undergo "dramatic changes", but that might well be the case for changing the template, rather than deleting it. My point #2 is not meant to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF; if the templates should be deleted, then they all should be deleted, and that would warrant a more general discussion. So, my vote is actually procedural keep. GregorB (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really argue with you here, since I think that all those templates that you've mentioned should indeed be deleted, too. The funny (or sad, rather) thing is that, if I nominate them all at once, I get "procedural keep" votes because the nomination is too broad. And if I nominate just a few, I get "procedural keep" votes because I haven't nominated the other templates, too. Hello, Catch-22. --Conti|✉ 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many future xxx templates have to be delete IMO. Things don't change rapidly in the given examples above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another example of a template copying the functionality of {{current}}. The citations and content of the likely candidate articles adequately describe the temporal nature of the topic, and render the use of the template superfluous. The template adds no information to the properly drafted article. Suitable categories may be added to the bottom of the article, without taking up key space with a banner at the top of the article in question. Further, there are zero bridge construction projects that differ from other articles in the amount of new information generated on the topic. Bridges take a few years to a decade or more to be built or reconstructed. Nothing exceptional about such a slow moving topic. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All good points. There's also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_2#Template:Building_under_construction_and_Template:Stadium_under_construction, and although that discussion's outcome is not binding, I'm changing my vote to "abstain". GregorB (talk) 20:28, 2 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.