Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 12

< June 11	June 13 >

June 12 edit

Template:Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Guitarists Of All Time 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 Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Guitarists Of All Time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Singers Of All Time; unnecessary template that just clutters pages. Ckatz^chat _spy 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there has been a similar article created (and subsequently AfD'd several times over) that contained this exact same content with all previous AfDs relating to the copyright violation concerns over re-printing the entire list. Wether B (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; over categorisation; for all its merits, Rolling Stone is not alone in producing such lists, and with the best will in the world, this category adds little to an understanding of the articles to which it is applied. Rodhull andemu 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree it's overcat, as well as copyright concerns. Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list lifts up Rolling Stone at the expense of other magazines such as Guitar Player that would conceivably differ as to artist standing. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see Rodhullandemu, Binksternet. The magazine generates these lists to pump up newsstand sales, it's unnecessary and sets an undesirable precedent toward addition of competing lists. Sswonk (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unconstructive, unnecessary, adds little to aid navigation. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 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:Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Singers Of All Time 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 Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Singers Of All Time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Over-templating; doesn't look like an appropriate template because magazine publications don't deserve their own templates for not being topical enough. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I mean, if we had templates for every magazine list...ugh. SKS (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the concerns expressed above, especially given the addition of Template:Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Guitarists Of All Time. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, plus needless clutter to a growing number of already cluttered articles about musicians.Seduisant (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; over categorisation; for all its merits, Rolling Stone is not alone in producing such lists, and with the best will in the world, this category adds little to an understanding of the articles to which it is applied. Rodhull andemu 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree it's overcat, as well as copyright concerns. Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list lifts up Rolling Stone at the expense of other magazines that would conceivably differ as to artist standing. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is an entirely subjective editorial ranking that has limited weight, unlike say the Academy Awards. Films are known for winning Oscars, but singers are not known for making this list. Also per Rodhullandemu. Sswonk (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)at'[reply]
Delete. Ditto. :) I have a problem with any music lists as templates except for quantifiable and proven things such as the Billboard top hits of X. But something like this? It's an editor's choice and nothing else. And thus it doesn't tell you anything substantive about the people listed outside of some editor(s) love them. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:40, 13 June 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:ImageStackRight 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 fix all transclusions and then delete. JPG-GR (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Substantial duplication of the more flexible {{stack}}, which needs unnecessary parameters ({{stack}} doesn't need a width to be specified). By changing the code to {{stack|{{{2|}}} }}, it can then be substituted on all transcluded pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with {{stack}} then delete. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What you see as an advantage, i.e., no width parameter, can be a disadvantage in certain circumstances, should a specific width need to be forced. The net result of deletion would be less flexibility for those editors who need, and know how, to use this template. JGHowes ^talk 22:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from a general design POV, when someone speaks of forcing a width (or

similar) in an HTML context, alarm bells should go off. As much of the eventual

rendering decisions as is possible should be left to the browser, and a wish

for e.g. a fix or minimum width is typically a sign of poor webdesign or,

in template languages, a sign of suboptimal rendering into HTML.

Correspondingly, unless there is one or several specific valid use cases, I

would recommend against keeping it. (If they exist, it would be helpful to see

a list.)

88.77.134.12 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 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:Mediationnote1 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) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mediationnote1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Move to userspace. Seems personalized to a specific user. Would also suggest modifying to be generic. Failing that since it only seems to be used once on an old archive page, deletion. Q ^{T C} 05:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a duplicate of User:MacMed/Mediationnote Q ^{T C} 05:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you ask the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal ? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 11:45, 13 June 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.