Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 3 October 5 >

October 4 edit

Template:Denzel Washington 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. Ruslik_Zero 09:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denzel Washington (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template contains two entries. Neither film was a rousing success and there are no upcoming directorial efforts that I can find. This is template overkill. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Template overkill indeed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough articles yet to justify a navbox. Could recreate later if/when he has directed more movies. --RL0919 (talk) 23:33, 4 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:Currently Airing Drama 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. Ruslik_Zero 09:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Currently Airing Drama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't know why, but the template is used only in currently airing Philippine TV shows. If the template employs the same purpose as {{Future television}}, then this a duplication of Template:Future_television, but is not of the same looks with the former. JL 09 q?c 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redundant, awkwardly worded. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept it would need to be remodelled along the lines of {{Current}}, though I'm not sure if the template is really necessary or useful. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dude 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves no purpose. Garion96 (talk) 16:23, 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:MAGCannon 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 speedy deleted G2 by User:RHaworth. JPG-GR (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navbox for an anime series that we don't have an article for. Only used on two articles that are both up for deletion (because, again, there's no parent article). Zetawoof(ζ) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the two articles under AfD are kept and the remaining redlink articles are created, it would still be a marginal number of articles for a navbox. Easy to recreate later if the article series is retained and expands to include an adequate number of articles. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we create articles and then navboxes, not the other way around. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:21, 5 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:Exploding animals 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. This navigational template combines together articles that are not logically connected to each other and, as such, is not very useful for readers. Ruslik_Zero 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exploding animals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is clearly an unneeded template. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too much origional research. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or change to category notable subject matter. Please note that Evosoho deleted all of the entries before and after this template went up for deletion.[1] Ikip (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument for deletion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nav. templates should be used in situations where several things are linked by a common thread or subject of some kind. Connecting any case of "exploding animals" together via a navigation template is not likely to improve the encyclopædia or assist the reader.Irbisgreif (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a valid navigational template connected several related articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Thaddeus. I think one is an FA (or used to be). We should work on making more of them FAs, and generally improving the encyclopedia. Not deleting navigation tools. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while this is a somewhat idiosyncratic navigational template, I think it's worth keeping, at least as long as most of the articles exist separately. It's a longstanding part of Wikipedia, and demonstrates that we're allowed to be a bit weird and offbeat sometimes, while still remaining encyclopaedic. In other words, WP:ILIKEIT - but I think this template is also of genuine use. Robofish (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least reformat. Utterly unusable in it's present form because it mixes too many different things. Amimals being used to carry bombs in military operations is not the same as exploding sheep in video games which is not the same as an exploading toad in nature which is not the same as decomposing whale carcasses being blown up to dispose of them or naturally through the buildup of gasses. Lumping all of these things together is a clear synthesis of materials. PC78 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The animals are exploding. That is not synthesis. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main article linked on the template has survived multiple AfDs, including one that was closed today as "speedy keep". So the apparent consensus of the community is that grouping these items as one subject called "exploding animals" is not original research. However, the fact that an article exists on a subject does not necessarily mean that it is useful to link items related to that subject in a navigation template. We need to ask ourselves whether a reader of the article on Camponotus saundersi (the "Ant" entry on the template) would find it helpful to be guided to an article about Anti-tank dogs (the "Dog" entry) or to an article about the Exploding sheep meme in video games (the "Sheep" entry). I think the answer to that is no. Someone who has a general interest in exploding animals of all types can go to the article on that topic and proceed from there. Visitors to the individual articles are most likely interested in some other topical area (entomology or military history, for example), making this navbox just clutter on most of the articles. --RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 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) 04:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely based on PC78's and RL0919's points. While nav templates can be useful to link topics by a shared aspect, that aspect needs to be prominent enough to be useful. This particular property of "having something to do with exploding" seems rather arbitrary. We could make a nav template linking all topics that have something to do with wood, all animals that have at least one black stripe, etc; but that isn't always useful. "Exploding animals" is an intriguing topic, and I'm glad we have an article on it; but I think that's enough. Equazcion (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, arbitrary inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PC78 and RL0919, and per trivia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just checked my userpage today and found the old exploding animals template had been redirected to this, and then got sent to TfD. That's mighty underhanded to do without notification of users who use the template. I have no valid reason to keep this, except (as noted above) it's a very old part of Wikipedia, and if Jimbo (or whoever the old guy is who justifies it) can keep his two thousand stupid Simpsons articles, then I should be allowed to keep my one tiny little template on exploding organisms. It does indeed serve a purpose - tying in various different organisms that explode. This is worth either a category or a template, and it's mighty underhanded to delete one without supplying another in its place. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will admit the Simpsons articles are a rather noteworthy demonstration of rule ignorance, but not only is that an other crap exists argument, but it's not just kept around for the glory of Jimbo. The Simpsons articles are rather popular among a large portion of Wikipedia's editors. The nav template isn't "yours" (as in "I should be allowed to keep my..."). If everyone thinks the encyclopedia would be best served by keeping it, it would be kept; but I don't think keep arguments should include reasoning that "I should get to keep this because..." The template needs to be judged on its merits, not based on who made it or who is advocating it. As for the purpose it serves, as in my examples above, tying topics together based on arbitrary properties isn't useful. Equazcion (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding is not an arbitrary quality. Having black stripes is an arbitrary quality. Exploding is something you wouldn't expect animals to do, therefore it is an extraodinary quality. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the nav template only contained animals that spontaneously exploded or had the ability to explode at will, I would agree. What makes it arbitrary is the fact that the template is for any relation of animals to exploding, whether naturally, by human rigging, or in video games. Equazcion (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, there should be no such thing as (out of the blue example) a "Flying Creatures" category: after all, some animals have feathered wings, others fly on skin stretched between limbs, others have membranous insect-like wings, and some creatures even fly by using a string of silk as a parachute. In fact it doesn't matter how they fly, they all deserve to be in the same category of "flying creatures"; similarly, since these animals all explode, they deserve to remain together in an "exploding animals" template. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They all have the natural ability to fly, though. The instances listed in this template seem unrelated to each other because they describe such different circumstances. They can't all explode naturally, though a couple do, and the rest just have some historical or pop-culture relation to exploding. Equazcion (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're driving this subdiscussion deeper and deeper into semantic argument, but that has nothing to do with my point. This isn't AfD, it's TfD. The template serves a function, as Peregrine Fisher notes above - it is a navigation tool. thus by TfD there is no reason to delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure templates are deleted all the time for the mere fact that they are judged to be extraneous. A template doesn't need to explicitly violate a rule in order to be deleted. It merely being a navigation tool doesn't mean it must be kept. Equazcion (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is done, it doesn't seem to be according to the rules. These are navigation tools, not articles. If they perform functions, they should be kept. I'd personally love to delete all barnstars and userboxen for being extraneous, as they're not needed in order for any of us to have talk pages, and our userpages are not supposed to be advertisements of personal qualities; but we don't delete them arbitrarily. Wikipedia has rules, we aren't allowed to be anarchists. (Typed with a straight face, strangely enough.) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstars are kept because the consensus is that they perform a useful function. If the consensus is that this nav template performs a useful function it'll similarly be kept. You're entitled to believe that it does, but stating that it doesn't is a perfectly valid argument for deletion (as long as some reasoning is provided of course). Arguments listed for use in TFD aren't exclusive. There's no list of valid arguments, with all other arguments being invalid. That's not anarchy; it's just allowing free debate. Equazcion (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regard to the comment that "This is worth either a category or a template," note that Category:Exploding animals does exist, so the removal of this template would not prevent navigation among the articles. It would just make it less prominent. --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get to delete every template that's duplicated by a category. "If we wreck this, Wikipedia will still work" is not a valid argument for deleting a template.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think RL was suggesting the nav template should be deleted just because it's redundant with the category. He was just answering your concern that the topic merits either a template or a category, and that IF the template ends up being deleted, the category would at least fulfill the need you stated. Equazcion (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, thanks for bringing up the category. It's interesting to note that Category:Exploding animals made Digg. [2] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - btw, note that this deletion doesn't follow any of the "templates for deletion" guidelines. The template doesn't violate namespace guidelines, it is not redundant to a better-designed template, it is being used directly to navigate between several articles, and it does not violate any policy such as NPOV or CIVIL. The nom's assertion that "this is clearly an unneeded template" is not even an argument by Wikipedia guidelines; it is being used as a template, thus it is a needed template. Further, nothing substantial about the template has changed since the last 2 times it was put up at TfD - except the number and type of exploding animals being referenced, which is yet another obvious indication of its usefulness. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here." - WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template We're following the guideline by trying to form a consensus. It is not required to cite one of the common reasons for deletion specifically listed on the main page. Lots of other reasons for deletion are given for specific cases. --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But all of the above apply to this template. This whole discussion seems like a WP:THISARTICLEISDUMB argument instead of one based on any rules. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is again no rule stating that delete arguments must be based on a rule. Deletion discussions are often general discussions on whether or not something is beneficial to the encyclopedia. Equazcion (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself contains info on most of the animals in the template, and to the extent it does not, that's what a "see also" section is for. The template itself only lists a few animals that explode for whatever assorted reasons, plus an article on the "exploding tree" hoax. Just a mishmash. Seems unnecessary. Montanabw(talk) 05:58, 9 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:Intro-synonyms (2nd nomination) 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) 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intro-synonyms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Although this template was the subject of a TfD about a month ago which resulted in no consensus, it has been suggested that some recent events might call for its re-evaluation. The template's author, User:Introman, has since been blocked for being a sockpuppet. User:The Four Deuces suspects that Introman created the template purely to irritate him during a dispute. The template also currently has no transclusions.

This nomination shouldn't be viewed as a vote for deletion from me; I merely thought it should be re-listed in light of recent events. I actually voted in the original discussion to keep (see my comments there via the link above), and I maintain that this template may have potential uses. Nevertheless I do admit to its obscurity, and on the rare occasion where it could be used, I don't think anyone would even think to check if such a template existed. Equazcion (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As I argued in the previous TfD, this template is an unnecessarily specific variation on {{POV-intro}}. The proliferation of little-used, highly-specific tags just makes Wikipedia more confusing for editors. If there was something unusual about "the display of certain alternate names for this article's subject" that could be described in the template in a way that allowed editors to fix the article without going to its Talk page, then a separate template might be justified. But that is not the case. The details and resolution of the dispute are going to be on the Talk page, which is where this template directs people to look. Since they have to go to Talk for the details anyway, the more specific language of this template provides no advantages over the generic version. It's just one more template to maintain, and one more tag on the already-long list of tags to help confuse editors trying to pick the right one to use. --RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You don't need a template for every potential problem when a more general template exists. Garion96 (talk) 09:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_4&oldid=1211679826"