Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 August 22)
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22 edit


Template:Infobox Buddhist 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 merge. JPG-GR (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox religious biography}} into which any new fields should be merged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't want to get involved arguing over some other wikiproject's template, I'm just going to keep on using this one and if you want to delete it you'll have to fix any articles that you mess up in the process. Thanks Shii (tock) 23:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I am voting keep on this template, I translated it myself from Japanese wikipedia and nobody has done anything to allow the religious bio template to duplicate all the functionality of this one. I bet you will put {{Infobox Buddhist biography}} on tfd next which is a shame because that template is useful too. Shii (tock) 15:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{infobox religious biography}}. I trust Andy can take care of adding the necessary additional name fields. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:53, 2 September 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 Kickboxer 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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and redundant to {{Infobox Martial artist}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:17, 22 August 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:Panorama simple 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panorama simple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate to {{panorama}}. This template was in the past forked into two versions. One bad version that was compatible with Internet Explorer, and one good version that was hardly usable when using Internet Explorer. If have now added two IE only classes "overflowbugx" and "overflowbugy" that correct the behaviour for Internet Explorer. As such now the fork is no longer useful. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I'm the original author of "Panorama simple") -- Thanks for fixing the template. —Pengo 07:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Original author agrees. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:35, 28 August 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 Mass Prison 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mass Prison (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant (and inferior) to {{Infobox Prison}}. Only four transclusions all replaced. Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:32, 22 August 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:Cosmiceraship 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template consisting only of a single line of prose. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Aside of name there is nothing. Not used and will not be used. --KrebMarkt 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - template crap. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally object to the use of "cruft" on wikipedia, but this? This is cruft in the classic sense. Delete -- unused and pretty much unusable, and not something a template would be needed for anyway. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused and unnecessary. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently, someone was using this as boilerplate for the lead sections of various Mobile Suit Gundam SEED sub-articles. Unfortunately, it's very badly written boilerplate, and given the variations one has to use from article to article, it's easier to use C&P techniques. --Farix (Talk) 22:47, 24 August 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:Season 1 SpongeBob Items 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Season 1 SpongeBob Items (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not currently used anywhere, and it's difficult to imagine how it could be useful. Appears to have been part of a major, if misguided, effort by this user. Favonian (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Isn't helpful and is very crufty. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be article body content in the form of trivia lists, which would be a bad use of a template even if the content itself were worthy. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 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 patriarch 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 Merge with {{Infobox Archbishop}} and {{Infobox Bishop}} as {{Infobox Christian leader}} or whatever consensus thinks is the best name for the merged template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox Archbishop}} (possibly best to redirect) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure that this is the best course of action. Is patriarch synonymous with archbishop? I'm thinking it would be better to merge these two and a few others ({{Infobox Bishop}}, {{Infobox Cardinal}}, {{Infobox Coptic Pope}} perhaps) into something more generically titled. PC78 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what you said last week. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It may be prudent to consolidate this (and perhaps others) into a single userbox", which is what I just said above. I was commenting on the redundancy of having several virtually identical infoboxes where just one would surely be more practical. Do you not agree that "Infobox Archbishop" is not the best title for a template that is not used exclusively for archbishops? PC78 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to your "Given its similarity to {{Infobox Archbishop}} I would question the need for {{Infobox Patriarch}} as well" So long as we reduce the number of such templates, one-by-one or all-at-once, I'm happy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any thoughts on a more generic title then? {{Infobox Christian clergy}} is the best I can come up with, but this is not my area of expertise. I'll have a proper look at the prospects of a merger tommorrow. PC78 (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Infobox God-botherer? ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • :D I have added a number of parameters to {{Infobox Archbishop/sandbox}}. See the testcases page; if implemented it would be able to replace all of those individual templates (except the Pope one due to the coding of the image parameter). I'll leave it to you on how to proceed here. {{Infobox Christian leader}}, perhaps? PC78 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thinking of {{Infobox officeholder}}, it may be best to implement your changes, then redirect other templates, so that people can still use the template name of their choice, without upsetting any sensitivities. The parent template could be at a more generic name, such as the one you suggest and its documentation, like Officeholder's, could explain what's been done. We could allow both types of image formatting; request a bot-run to convert images from one format to the other; then remove the deprecated type from the template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of the template is in a strict way irrelevant, both templates share some of their parameters so I think they could be easily merged. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox Christian leader}}
{{Infobox Christian leader|type=cardinal}}
{{Infobox Christian leader|type=pope}}
    • With reference to testcases, I agree to merge Infobox Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, Coptic Pope. Of course the merge shall be made automatically by a BOT. I disagree to merge Infobox Cardinal and Pope mainly because of their peculiar colors tied to their Choir dress.
      I've written the bios of about 35 Patriarchs and I would suggest to add following parameter: elected, confirmed and consecrated_by. An other unsolved problem is who held the position two or more times in the life. An other remark is that the terms ordination and consecration without other specification could be misunderstood. For example Catholics usually use the term ordination also for bishop, and the Orthodox use laying of hands (Cheirotonia, without use of oil). Thus I suggest to use the parameters deacon_ordination, priestly_ordination, bishop_consecration
      Also please check to this other template Template:Infobox bishopbiog that could be merged as well. This infobox is at all effects a double of infobox:bishop except for the religious career. A ntv (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why the cardinal infobox should use a different colour; {{Infobox Cardinalstyles}} uses the same shade of purple as the other templates being discussed here. Regardless, colour alone is no basis to keep a seperate template when it would be trivial to have the main template support different colours. (I'm still not sure about merging {{Infobox Pope}} at this point.) Additions and improvements can certainly be made, but that's not really the subject of discussion here. PC78 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The colors of cardinals and popes is very popular and their rank is understood by Catholics from the very color. Further the purple is the color of the choir dress of bishops: to make uniform also cardinals/popes would be a WP:POV downgrading that could be considered quite offensive by many people. To allow any user to choice their own color is not functional: too difficult to select the palette, and too many slight different choices for the same color. Anyway merging cardinal and pope infoboxes is not the subject of discussion here. A consensus could be easily reached of patriarch/bishop/archbishop, not on cardinal/pope/infobox. A ntv (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We kind of are discussing merging them here. I'm not suggesting that we "allow any user to choice their own color"; the colours that are currently in use would be set using a parameter (see the example I've added above). PC78 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can do with templates what I considered impossible! With {{Infobox Archbishop|type=cardinal}} and {{Infobox Archbishop|type=pope}} of course I agree to merge them too. A ntv (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • About {{Infobox Pope}}, I agree to merge it too. One problem are the parameters "Papacy began" and "Papacy ended". The parameter "Papacy ended" can be substituted by "Reign ended", while the parameter "Papacy began" cannot be substituted by "Enthroned", because the papacy begins with the election, or with the consecration if the elected is not a bishop, and not with the enthronement which usually happens in about a week. Thus I suggest to add them to the new template as they are (also for use of not Catholic popes). For the caption issue, I've not understood the problem, so I cannot express any comment. A ntv (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm OK with rationalizing these. Consider naming it "Infobox Bishop" or "Infobox Prelate". Majoreditor (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've been bold and implemented a number of things discussed here:
  1. I've used {{Infobox Bishop}} as the basis for the new combined template and renamed it as {{Infobox Christian leader}}. The name isn't set in stone and {{Infobox Prelate}} as suggested above may be a better choice. I didn't use it simply because I'm pretty ignorant of religious terminology.
  2. I've redirected {{Infobox Archbishop}}, {{Infobox Coptic Pope}} and {{Infobox Antipope}} to {{Infobox Christian leader}}. It's possible to do likewise with {{Infobox patriarch}} but I didn't want to while this TfD was still open.
  3. {{Infobox Cardinal}} now calls {{Infobox Christian leader}}; I did this rather than redirect because it requires the |type= parameter to be set, and it would require updating more articles than what I'm prepared to do. Someone else could do it if they wanted, though.
  4. I've left {{Infobox Pope}} for now but someone else can be bold with it if they want. I managed to resolve the issue with the |image= parameter by using the rather handy {{Image}} template, so it's replaceable with {{Infobox Christian leader|type=Pope}}. PC78 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 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:Miss Tourism Queen International 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss Tourism Queen International (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for deleted series of article (the main one might be lit up as you read this but that's a copyvio that was added this morning and will shortly be deleted, the article article was deleted via AFD yesterday. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The template is unnecessary.--Ped Admi (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused and consists only of red links. Useless. PC78 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 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:The Elephant 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Elephant Show episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Once upon a time, this might have been a series-specific spinoff of Template:Infobox Television episode, but it has none of that functionality and such spinoffs aren't proper anyway. Orphaned, says Russbot. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like it is an unused experiment. No article links and no edits since it was created. --RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:18, 24 August 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:See also2 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See also2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:See also has this exact functionality with its l1, l2, etc. parameters. This template doesn't really do anything beyond that, so there's no need for a separate template. ~150 mainspace transclusions; I suggest a bot do the cleanup---it seems easily programmable. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep: {{See also}} is for a direct link to articles and don't support a shorter link to a section (like: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 22#my comment link to My comment)? But {{See also2}} support this and can show the small title My comment? This is a big difference between these templates IMHO Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. The main see also template can do exactly that by using the l1, l2, etc. parameters. See Template:See_also#Example; it shows how you can put an alternate name for the links if you want. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The functionality appears to be the same. I currently see no different result between {{See also|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 22#my comment|l1=My comment}} and {{See also2|[[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 22#my comment|My comment]]}}.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hm, ah. You are right. Very sorry, "You can use parameters l1 to l15 to specify alternative labels for the links." was too small for me. So: delete. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per wp:t3. JIMp talk·cont 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use both {{see also}} and {{see also2}} and it's true that {{see also2}} doesn't have any FUNCTIONALITY that its predecessor does not. However, IMHO, {{see also2}} is DRAMATICALLY more intuitive to use, when alternate display names are desired. I like the idea of an automated bot to go around and change each instance of {{see also2}} to a properly formatted instance of {{see also}}, but I also believe retaining the easier-to-implement template is in the best interests of the Wikipedia community (such as newbies).
    --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. {{see also}}'s approach to alternate text is non-intuitive and cumbersome. {{see also2}}'s approach is intuitive (but verbose when no alternative text is required). I suggest renaming {{see also2}} as {{see also alt}} (or {{see altso}}? )to emphasize its utility for displaying alternate text. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's somewhat of a mystery to me why even even one template would be required for such a simple type of linking, and two is entirely pointless. If one is less intuitive than the other, then fix the problem instead of trying to solve it with template forking. Peter Isotalo 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why do we have separate "See also"-linkage in the first place? These are supposed to go at the bottom of the article. These seem to merely be an outgrowth of {{main}} with an almost identical function. There seems to be a bit too much redundancy going on here. Peter Isotalo 07:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am directed to here by the ugly small texts of notification on the article of Korean cuisine in place for the template. It is used for many articles, and I don't see why it should be deleted.--Caspian blue 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to motivate your vote with something more substantial than annoyance with the nomination itself and that the template happens to be in use. Peter Isotalo 13:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These two templates do not have the same functionality when the target link is template-generated. {{see also}} screws up the formatting. For example:
    {{see also|{{cfb link|year=2009|team=Colorado State Rams|title=Colorado State}}}} results in
    See also: [[:Colorado State]]
    {{see also2|{{cfb link|year=2009|team=Colorado State Rams|title=Colorado State}}}} results in
    See also: Colorado State
Due to the differences in the way they work ({{see also2}} takes the square brackets in the parameter), I don't see {{see also}} replacing this template anytime soon for this style of usage. Also note that a bot-assisted cleanup would break these usages. I'm not against the idea of renaming the template to more accurately reflect how it is different from {{see also}}.DeFaultRyan 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if I might be ignorant about template usage, but isn't this much easier to write in plain wikicode?
See also: Colorado State
I also don't understand why you would ever want to use a link that gives the appearance of linking to a completely different topic. Doesn't that merely mislead the reader?
Peter Isotalo 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next change of opinion: I think the support of use of template-generated links (as Ryan stated), seems to be a reason to keep this template. (But is the here used {{cfb link}} not a little bit speculative? This template will allow you to link to a college football team page that may not yet exist. It will display the best available link.) Because maybe I change my mind tomorrow again, I will not 'bold' it now. Greetings and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
It's easier to write, but that's not the point of using {{cfb link}}. Using cfb link allows us to have a link that will automatically update as more specific articles get created. For example, when the 2009 Colorado State Rams football team article gets created, the template usage I showed above will now update to point to the new article, rather than the previously-linked Colorado State Rams football article. This automagic updating makes the usage of {{cfb link}} extremely valuable.
As for your second point, when referring to sports teams, it's accepted practice to refer to the team by its "short name" in the text, i.e., Colorado State or possibly Colorado State Rams as opposed to Colorado State Rams football or 2009 Colorado State Rams football team. I agree it's not desirable to have a link point to "a completely different topic", but that's not what's happening here. It still makes sense to link to the most appropriate (specific) article in the wiki, even if the link title is a little more general. This doesn't always make sense, especially when linking in a "See also" statement, but I've been experimenting with, and I'm floating a proposal for {{cfb link}} to allow the use of a non-piped link (no alternate title), so that the link text simply displays the article it points to. This wouldn't be desired many places, such as a season schedule, but would fit in perfectly for this See also: usage.
Re:Sebastian - The usage is not neccesarily speculative, because this template is mostly used for past seasons, rather than future seasons, but in cases where the article simply is not yet written. As a specific example, the article 1930 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team, has not yet been written, but would be extremely notable as it was an undefeated, consensus national championship, and it was the final season for legendary coach Knute Rockne before he died in a plane crash. Therefore, it's a near certainty that at some point, somebody is going to create this article. Using {{cfb link}} allows an editor to link to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football in the meantine, as in "The 1930 college football national champions were the Notre Dame Fighting Irish...", with the link automatically updating to point to the 1930 article when it gets created, rather than the alternative, which is having to go back and update the article if the editor is lucky enough to notice if/when the 1930 article is created. DeFaultRyan 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a highly specific, technical use of templates. I appreciate the need for easy updating, but I do think it's prudent to remind about what this means for non-established editors. The heavier the use of templates, especially ones that are this specific, the harder it is for anyone who's not familiar with wiki syntax to edit. Having a "dormant" redlink that will activate as soon as a certain article is created is also somewhat marginal benefit, especially in a "See also"-link. On paper it's wonderful, but it dependent on some rather specific conditions. It also somewhat defeats the purpose of having redlinks in order to encourage people to create new articles. Like so many other templates used nowadays, it heavily favors experienced edtitors while forcing newbies to a do a ton of technical research just to edit simple links correctly.
Peter Isotalo 07:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on all the discussion above, I think this one deserves the benefit of the doubt based on the folks who find it superior to the alternative. A merger with {{See also}} would be desirable in the long run, but clearly a lot of people don't find them equivalent right now. --RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems pretty obvious it offers enhancements not available in the other template. older ≠ wiser 02:47, 31 August 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:VG Navigation 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 with replacement by {{navbox}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VG Navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template. WP:VG uses the regular Template:Navbox for all of its navboxes now. No transclusions in templatespace. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:21, 22 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_22&oldid=1211536115"