Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10 edit

Template:Christopher Cain 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 keep. Garion96 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christopher Cain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template lists movies directed by Christopher Cain. This director is not particularly well known and is hardly an "Auteur" that readers need an aid to navigate to his other films. If a reader does want this information it is easy to find in the article on the director. Adding this template to a page would do nothing but add useless clutter and trivia. I know there is a substantial list of directors for which such templates exist (see Category:American film director templates), but a line has to drawn somewhere. We don't need a "By the same director" section in every movie article. RDBury (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is a sufficient number of articles for this director's movies to justify a navbox. Who directed is widely considered a crucial aspect of a film, so there is no generic objection to navboxes of this type (which is one reason there are so many). I don't see any relevance to opinions about whether or not this particular director is an "auteur". --RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template with many relevant links, fullfilling a function that is not otherwise taken care of (linking all articles directly). Debresser (talk) 00:05, 11 October 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 U.S. state COA 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 Garion96 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state COA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in two articles, appears to be redundant to {{Infobox U.S. state}}. It appears to be a direct copy of {{Infobox U.S. state}} with a field added for a "Coat of Arms", hence the name. I would say that field could be added to {{Infobox U.S. state}}, and this box could be deleted. Interesting that the template was also created with the TFD already in it for some reason? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox U.S. state}}. This was created at time when that other template was the subject of a TfD discussion, and I assume the user just copied the whole thing, TfD notice and all. Clearly redundant. Coat of arms field can be added if the users of the standard template want it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicate. States don't have "coat of arms", only state seals. The current "seal=" field at {{Infobox U.S. state}} is sufficient for that purpose.DCmacnut<> 16:49, 12 October 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:Coor 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 redirected to {{Coord}}. Garion96 (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been deprecated and is currently not used on any pages. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No transclusions, and according to the documentation on historical versions, it has not been used on article pages since at least December 2006. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. Since ViperSnake151 suggested a redirect, it occurs to me that this is a pretty easy typo for {{Coord}}, and since it already exists there's no harm in redirecting it. --RL0919 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{coord}}. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:37, 18 October 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:Prettytable 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been deprecated and is currently not used on any pages. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Deprecated for over three years, no transclusions, and redundant to CSS classes. There are several close relatives of this template (e.g., {{Prettytablewidth}} that should also be nominated for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not used, not worth keeping around. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:45, 17 October 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:G5 Group 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G5 Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The article the template refers to, G5 (British universities) is currently being considered for deletion due to notability issues. Given the questionable notability of the subject, it makes no sense to have a navigation template. The template is currently only used in the article mentioned.RDBury (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete regardless of AFD outcome - notability is certainly not enough to justify a navigation template. Rd232 talk 14:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unofficial name for a group of universities, with limited sources to imply that this term is anywhere near to being in mainstream usage. Certainly doesn't warrant its own template. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 08:44, 11 October 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:Big East Cities 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big East Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There seems to be little legitimate use for this navbox. Navboxes normally are used to tie together articles that have some strong relationship. I don't see how a listing of cities that have a university in the Big East sports conference really qualifies as a relevant connection. Brian Powell (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's very tenuous to connect articles about cities because there happen to be schools in them that are in a sports conference. If navboxes were justified by this type of relationship, the amount of navbox clutter would be astounding. --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this navbox; I was following the precedent set by Template:Big_Ten_Cities and Template:Big_12_Cities. If navboxes for other major athletic conferences are acceptable, why should the Big East Conference be excluded? Slingstone (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because they exist doesn't mean they are "acceptable". See WP:Other stuff exists. The others were both created earlier this year and have never been discussed at TfD, so there is no precedent established. If this one is deleted, then most likely those will be nominated and deleted also, for the same reasons. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right; 'precedent' was a poor word choice. I happen to think these navboxes are rather useful, but I understand that's for the wikipedian community to decide as a whole. I just wanted folks voting to know that it was created a part of a larger attempt to organize and wikify college towns, because different Universities and their athletic conferences are not always treated fairly.Slingstone (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nom that there should a strong connection between the articles they link. This navbox allows you to jump straight from Chicago to New Brunswick, New Jersey and I don't think most people would see the connection unless it was pointed out.--RDBury (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tenuous connection and very crufty. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above; even if the other templates mentioned by Slingstone aren't problematic, they largely link college towns while this one contains (in large part) cities, within the context of which the colleges involved are not as significant. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the similar templates for Template:Big_Ten_Cities, etc. Navboxes should be used to connect pages that have a meaningful relationship. It is meaningful to maintain navboxes for all the schools in a particular athletic conference, because being in the same athletic conference is a meaningful connection between those schools. The cities where those schools are located do not have meaningful relationship. I can imagine that the navbox could be useful for students and alumni planning road trips to their school's "away" games, but usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion of content and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 18 October 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:Moved 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 substitute and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a popular template from several years ago, it has no modern use on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no reason to use it now, nor is there any reason for this text be a template at all. I propose that we subst its existing uses and then delete the template. @harej 03:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuild such a template would be useful as an article history template on the article talk page. It'd also let people know that a consensus was obtained if the discussions have been archived or occurred somewhere else as part of a multimove request. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Regarding the comment above, page histories are not lost when a page is moved. PC78 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete won't be used, hasn't been used recently. GrooveDog • oh hai 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary given that moves are documented in the page history, and in the uses I examined it was also pointless because the moves were clearly explained in talk page discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the page histories do not indicate if a consensus was reached in naming, it only indicates a move occurred. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 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:Eleanor Powell 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eleanor Powell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus has determined that filmography templates for actors is redundant and unnecessary. See the section for the Jim Carrey template from October 9 for a breakdown of previous discussions that determined consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the same general reasons given in the Jim Carrey template: I agree with and support the consensus from WP:ACTOR. It is jut a bad idea all around to have actor templates shoved onto every film article any actor ever appeared in. It would clutter the footers of most articles very quickly, often leads to the creation of unnotable film articles because its linked in the template, and it really does not aid in navigation at all. If people are interested in an other actor's filmography, they can go to that actor's article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per previous consensus and WP:ACTOR. Lugnuts (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons cited above. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons articulated at length at WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive and in TfDs for similar templates. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 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:US Presidents to win Nobel Peace Prize 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Presidents to win Nobel Peace Prize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Making a word up, this is excessive over-templatization. We don't need yet another navbox for the Presidents that has only four names on it and will not be growing. It is just an unnecessary intersection of Template:US Presidents and Template:Nobel Peace Prize. Reywas92Talk 00:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough articles to warrant a navbox. Appears to be recentism at work. --RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. does not need. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely just a recentism. Underpopulated navbox, won't be used too much. GrooveDog • oh hai 02:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Pointless for four people; simple recentism. DKqwerty (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — useless, even creating another problem, like too many templates on the Barack Obama article.—Chris!c/t 06:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was just coming by to TFD it myself. Reeks of Obamania, and provides no terribly useful navigation. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unnecessary. Only four and unlikely to see extensive or rapid growth. Only one change ever 4-8 years of a new entry, and generally unlikely to happen. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for hybrid navbox when one for each already exists. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It just adds to the clutter of the four articles it links to, and serves only a marginal purpose. Coemgenus 16:10, 15 October 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_discussion/Log/2009_October_10&oldid=1140133230"