Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7 edit

Template:The Beautiful Life: TBL 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) 03:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Beautiful Life: TBL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navigation box only contains two links. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The purpose of a navbox is to facilitate navigation, and navigating between two articles (which are already adequately interlinked) does not require a template. Since the series was cancelled after airing just two episodes, it's unlikely that there will be any new articles or content. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have proposed merging the list of episodes into the main article (see Talk:The Beautiful Life#Merging the episodes list), and I will do so in 3–5 days if no one objects. At that time, this template would become a single-article template. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the result of the merge proposal, two articles is not enough links to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 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:James Cameron's Avatar 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) 19:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Cameron's Avatar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template serves as a collection of links (excepts the casting and production) that points out as redirect ~~tio~~ to Avatar (2009 film) and nothing more. If this template was designed to be a collection of links that redirects to the same article (not including the casting, which I believe does not deserve to be grouped into a template that defined their position in the film) then this template is truly not needed and thus redundant. It will only navigate to the single page.JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the assessment above. Furthermore, very few of those redlinks are ever going to be written up. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Klein zach 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I strongly disagree with the assessment above. All of the redlinks are likely to be written, but better rename it to Avatar franchise. With two sequels coming up, Wikipedia will be swarmed, and the template's purpose is the same as the one for the Star Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVATARia (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation," as the ball goes. Avatar is set to be released earliest by December 16, 2009, how come you know that there are two sequels coming up? Even the plot section seems to be dubious, especially that it hasn't been filmed earlier.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment addition: I can verify that Avatar is going to be a trilogy. The contract, signed by Mr Worthington and Mrs Saldana, does not stipulate filming a single movie, but a total of three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVATARia (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intreguing name AVATARia... you're not James Cameron, by any chance, are you? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disregarding the cast (as I and many others do for this type of template), there are not enough distinct (non-redirect) and relevant (not links to generic, non-movie-related articles like Human) links to justify a navbox. If the franchise is such a success that articles about individual characters are written, then a navbox can be created in the future without much difficulty. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above - as it currently stands with a single film there just isn't enough stand-alone wiki' material that requires a navbox which cannot be handled in other ways within the body of the article or, at worst, "See also" links. To have a navbox of similar dimensions to that for Star Trek (after 43 years, 700+ episodes, 11 films and thousands of spin-offs) seems neither justified, nor required /at present/ since for that example there are discrete decent-quality articles within a wider frame rather than merely a cast & credits list and a swathe of redlinks plus the likes of "Human" and "Earth". Reads more like wiki' advertising Avatar, if that's permitted to be said... Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 02:29, 13 December 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 flu pandemic table with cases 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) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 flu pandemic table with cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, old, {{2009 flu pandemic table}} is better. I would sent it for "speedy" deletion via T3 but nowadays TfDs are faster. Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant to the other template. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 8 December 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:Argentine heavy metal 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) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Argentine heavy metal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how this would be useful. By its nature, it overlaps with Category:Argentine heavy metal musical groups even though Beto Vázquez Infinity, for example, isn't included. If the concern is red-links, then I would suggest listifying it. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Write the redlinked articles and add the cat to them; you can then delete the temp. This assumes the reds are notable... --Jubilee♫clipman 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but I don't think we should condition deletion on the creation of the currently-redlinked articles (useful redlinks should be preserved where possible, but there is no obligation to keep them). Information that is not limited to a clearly-defined set of members is not suited for templating; consider, for example, a case where we have hundreds of articles that fall into the category of a "{Nationality} {genre} person/group" intersection (e.g., American jazz musicians)... Having a template with hundreds of names would not only make the template cluttered and unusable, but the template itself would clutter the articles on which it appears. This template does not have hundreds of names, but it conveys the same class of information as given in the example. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:33, 8 December 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.