Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9 edit

Template:User prolog 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 merged to {{User Prolog}}. JPG-GR (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User prolog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{User pro}}. See WT:Userboxes/Programming OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the new template is a very bad name. Delete the new template and rebuild this one. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could just as easily delete this one so the other can be moved. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose an administrator could histmerge the two together at {{User prolog}} and the latest edit will show on top. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no.
Heh. Seriously though, a merge would be fine here. {{User Prolog}} is the best title for the resulting template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 12 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:California High Desert 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 User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California High Desert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is useless, there is another template that provides information about this region's metropolitan area, the Inland Empire. I really do find it use less when we have Template:Inland Empire. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Useless itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KGF0 ( T | C ) 03:58, 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:Final standings 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 User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Never used, appears to be a test template now abandoned by a now-inactive user. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused personal template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 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:Phineas and Ferb 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 Withdrawn per SuperFlash 101's promise to work on it.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phineas and Ferb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Cast templates are generally discouraged. Take away the cast, and you only have three sub-articles on which this could possibly be used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not to mention the colors make my eyes bleed. Delete. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)~~ In light of the below discussion, I'll change my !vote to wikt:ambivalentambivalent. I would still like to see the colors removed (or at least seriously toned down), though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am planning on making pages on major characters with a vast amount of information in them. This will therefore make the template notable. As well, there are several episodes I am as well planning on making, with viable and useful information. Also, is color really important at all? That can be fixed if it's such a bother, which I can't see how it is. The Flash ^{talk} 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think there's enough secondary material to include articles on the main characters? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. Tons of production info is available; maybe not up to Bart Simpson-like level, but still Aang-like level. The Flash ^{talk} 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I've removed the cast per precedent on other similar templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, good. I'll start a sandbox for the main character. The Flash ^{talk} 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can help with this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:18, 10 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:British political parties/draft 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 deleted G7 by User:Mifter. JPG-GR (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British political parties/draft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this as a draft for Template:British political parties, it's not needed now. Fences and windows (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you created it, I'm pretty sure you can just tag with a CSD g7 for author requests deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:41, 9 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:Open for Expansion 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 User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open for Expansion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Essentially a stub indicator, and we already have a sufficiently complex stub system, not to mention {{expand}}. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is for an article that is not a stub, but is a userpage or an article where you want others to expand it. (Like a large stub) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicken Cheese Pie Monkey (talk • contribs)

Haven't you heard of {{Expand}}, silly new user? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All articles are open for expansion by default, that's generally what the whole "anyone can edit" mantra implies. Also, this template is redundant to {{expand}}. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to several other templates. TN X Man 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to other templates and states the obvious. What article isn't open for proper expansion? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete States the obvious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zoo Fari 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is redundant -- Patchy1^(talk) 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely useless. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:25, 16 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:Production I.G 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 User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Production I.G (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A overly large template attempting to list all 100+ works developed by this company, which is still very active. Far to big and useless for navigational purposes. Studios do not need templates like this for this very reason. Has a category which is far more useful for this purpose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the template will always be little more than a block of links, due to the sheer amount of work Production I.G has done. This is not what navboxes are meant to look like, and it doesn't help anyone with interarticle navigation as-is. One last point; the template currently adds Category:Production I.G to all articles that transclude it; this category needs to be moved to individual articles as appropriate (and if the template is kept, the category needs to be disabled from being auto-added). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most already had the individual cats, but I've run through and fixed the rest and removed the auto cat from the template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, takes care of that. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have a list version, or are we going to rely on the (frankly clumsy and hard to maintain) category alone? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a list but its been removed. Such a list would also be unweildy and, in gneeral, goes against what is being done with (quality) studio/production articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I confess, I'm one of those who finds categories awkward navigation purposes, and only in part because they give no context to any given link. If we don't have a list, I'm strongly inclined to suggest we keep this and see if we can pretty it up a bit (autohiding being a start). —Quasirandom (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I should start out by saying that my opinion is likely subject to my personal bias in this discussion, as a) I created the template and - perhaps more importantly - b) I have a general preference for navigational templates over other navigational devices (such as categories or lists). In my opinion this template is superior to the category in that it can be edited from a single location (rather than having to go through every article), can be more easily divided and modified (such as by adding (animated sequence) to the Kill Bill entry) and does not require the reader to cycle back and forth though it. With the category the reader must visit the category page every time they wish to find another article on the topic, with the template - present on each page - this is not necessary. Whilst I understand the "block of links" argument I think that is form is somewhat standard where it can be useful (such as for Template:Disney theatrical animated features) and there is a well defined group of articles. In a collapsed format the template would take up very little space on the page and the category will still always be available. In order to reduce the "block of links" effect the template could be divided up into categories (OVAs, television, movies, etc.) for all but the main article. I think the distinctive - whilst varying - style and tone of the studio - along with something of a mainstream and cult following means that it likely users will want to navigate within the topic, I don't think that removing one means of doing so will help readers. The category - with all its advantages and disadvantages - will also always be available. Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this is an aesthetic/eyesore issue on a specific page or set of pages, why not simply auto-collapse the template? If I were forced to make up my mind I'd probably go with a "weak keep" since many editors prefer this method of navigating related articles. -Thibbs (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty handy, just auto-collapse it. On another note, I don't really see how removing a list of works from an animation studio article makes it more "quality" than a mess of short paragraphs full of bluelinks. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:49, 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:Fenerbahçe SK PAF Squad 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 User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fenerbahçe SK PAF Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad template for a under-20 team, which is made useless by the fact the linked subject are not worthy of an article under WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template is not useful as linked subjects are not notable enough for articles. Jogurney (talk) 04:03, 10 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:Now (simplified) 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) 05:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Now (simplified) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. JIMp_talk·cont 02:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a built-in which provides this output? The aggregated version might be useful enough to keep in other templates, even if it isn't in current use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are already plenty of such templates, widely and correctly used, including {{Now}} and {{Right now}}. KGF0 ( T | C ) 04:10, 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:User2a 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 support for deletion, default to keep. JPG-GR (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User2a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's completely redundant with {{User2}}, I know it can be an alternative but their differences does not make this template worths its existence; anyway it isn't a very used template. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' it is functionally different, as far as I can tell, the two summaries access different ToolServer scripts, one of them clasifies different sorts of edits. 70.29.210.130 (talk) 03:52, 9 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.