Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 4

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

October 4 edit

Template:RCapital 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) 00:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This navigation template contains links to only two articles, and so is not justified at this time (I checked and articles about the others seem to not exist). The two articles do link to each other in the text, so deleting the template will not sever the connection between them. (Template creator not notified because: indef-blocked) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Navbox that primary topic of has no article. --Bsherr (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless red link farm. PC78 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (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:Uw-causeblock 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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-causeblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template convolutes notification that a user account has been blocked for contravention of the user name policy with a user name that ostensibly represents an organization, and a user warning about a conflict of interest. Multipurpose user talk templates have always been problematic, and that is why few, if any, exist within the scope of the User Warnings Project.

First, by blending these two issues, this template mixes process such that the blocked and warned user can confuse the reasons for the block and the subsequent process. The template presents the block reasons, then describes conflict of interest, then discusses process to appeal the block. This presentation could confuse a user into thinking that the conflct of interest is part of the reason for the block, when it actually is not. Possible consequences are that the user may mistakenly abandon a meritorious appeal of the user name block, or may unnecessarily or detrimentally, since irrelevant arguments often detract in the decision on appeal, address conflict of interest issues in appealing the block when they are actually not relevant.

Second, the text of the template indicates that its use is instead of an actual examination of whether a conflict of interest may exist. In contrast, the design of {{uw-coi}} provides for its use after actually examining the user's edits and considering the types of articles edited, the user name, and other information about the user that may reveal a conflict of interest. The user then specifically identifies the relevant article in providing warning of a potential conflict of interest. Causeblock, however, provides information about conflict of interest only because the user name has been blocked, without any additional examination. While the information the template provides would be fine in a welcome/help template, guised in the dress of a block template, it becomes inappropriately declarative. Regardless, while I understand that the template was created to provide relevant information to users while being convenient for the the user applying it, it is inferior to the use of the separate template; small additional effort could determine whether a specific COI warning is indicated.

For these reasons, I propose the template be redirected to Template:Uw-softerblock. I believe the template is effectively redundant with applying both {{uw-softerblock}} and {{Welcome-COI}}, or, even better, {{uw-coi}} if appropriate. I hope that commenters in opposition will address specifically the sufficiency of these particular combinations as replacements for the template. Bsherr (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to {{Uw-softerblock}}; the two templates seem to effectively say the same thing, but softerblock is much less confusing to read, and doesn't drag in WP:N for a tangential reason. --ais523 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • KeepThe original discussion that led to the creation of this back in May is at Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive_2#Could we have some kind of WP:NOBLECAUSE-block template created? I don't see how this is confusing or unclear. Choosing a username that represents a group and then writing an article about that group shows a COI, and is in fact part of the reason for blocking such accounts. This was developed as a friendlier template to be used in this specific situation, and is now part of Twinkle's standard set of block notices. Why use two templates when we have one made just for this particular situation? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you show where the template says explicitly that the COI is part of the reason for the block? Could you also show where the template states explicitly that the user wrote a conflicted article? --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template was deliberately formulated to be a "soft option" for well meaning people who just don't quite get that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about their pet cause. It is deliberately non-confrontational and therefore does not explicitly accuse the person of anything except having an unacceptable username. If you don't like it you are not obligated to use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern is for the recipients of the template, regardless of whether I use it. You said that COI is part of the reason a user receiving this template is blocked, but you also said that the template intentionally does not identify them as editing with a COI. I'm concerned is that the user is being blocked for COI, but is never explicitly told that in the template. Isn't that problematic? --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This discussion has been cross-posted at WT:UAA to alert UAA regulars to the potential change. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Beeblebrox. He put it better than I could state. -- Alexf(talk) 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it does a good job of explaining why the user was blocked in terms of the username matching a company name, and the user's edits also being problematic: hopefully users who create accounts with different usernames after receiving this template will know to avoid the problematic editing in future, not just choose a more appropriate username. I don't see how it could be confusing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried to explain what makes it confusing. It would be helpful to me if you could explain if you think the issues I identified are aren't important. --Bsherr (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Bsherr, the reason the template is probably going to be kept is that there is at least one valid reason for any given block. The message is intentionally anti-bureaucratic because bureaucracy drives new users away. As a result, it isn't perfectly precise. Any given block is for a valid reason, and soft blocks over username are unlikely to be appealed successfully anyway, unless the admin is being abusive, which in this case should be fairly obvious to the community if not to the victim, and hopefully we can deal with such things on a case by case basis. --NYKevin @240, i.e. 04:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • While bureaucracy may drive new users away, I expect a confusing and unclear block message is a more acute cause. --Bsherr (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definite strong keep. A users intentions should be reflected in the tone of the block message. I use this template all the time.  7  23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something like the message in this block notice is appropriate for some new accounts. You could make an argument that the language could be softer or harsher or that other links might be better, or that the language is "confusing and unclear", but those problems can be addressed by editing the template, at which point you'll see if your position has support. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 12 October 2010 (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 basketball player 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 Merge. This will be done by moving Infobox Euroleague Player to Infobox basketball player. WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox basketball player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

My suggestion is to merge it with {{Infobox Euroleague Player}} and use the Infobox basketball player name. Infobox Euroleague Player has more standard appearance, this one is used only in 17 pages and they have use the same parameters. Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. The Euroleague infobox is sufficiently generic, and the two are pretty similar, so a single infobox makes sense. PC78 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to the Euroleague template. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2010 (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:User Religion Is Harmful 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 by nominator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Religion Is Harmful (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:UBX, "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Per the fact that this was TfDed recently. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why delete it, i still dont understand, if it contains something that troubles you, then let me know.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Userboxes should be nominated at WP:MfD, not TfD. --ais523 10:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
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 Ukrainian oblast 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 and convert to a wrapper. Ruslik_Zero 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ukrainian oblast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox province .Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the template you mentioned for whatever reason is being redirected to Template:Infobox settlement. Let's figure what is the deal with that first and then we will see how it is actually redundant. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how it is redundant. Raion and Oblast are administrative divisions and they are not settlement. Why are you redirecting everything there? Are you going to redirect state, province, or county there too? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Infobox province}} has been a redirect to {{Infobox settlement}} for over a year. The reason, as I understand it, is that there is considerable overlap between the information needed for political units of all sizes. Using a single template cuts the maintenance burden because enhancements and bug fixes automatically apply to all political units. The main advantage I see to localized infoboxes like {{Infobox Ukrainian oblast}} is that they are simpler, having far fewer fields than {{Infobox settlement}}. In order to have the best of both worlds, why not make {{Infobox Ukrainian oblast}} a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Infobox settlement}} is the standard infobox for settlements and administrative divisions, and it seems perfectly capable of doing the job here. The flexibility of the main template outweighs the convenience of a wrapper, IMO. PC78 (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Concur with Stepheng3. --Bsherr (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (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 Ukrainian raion 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 and convert to a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}. Ruslik_Zero 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ukrainian raion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox Raion. See Petrivskyi Raion.Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this tenplate could probably be renamed to Infobox raion and used for "Raion" articles for the former Soviet countries. Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have {{Infobox Russian district}} for Russia, but it has a lot of Russia-specific fields and probably lacks a lot of Ukraine-specific ones. Other FSU countries would have their own quirks I would imagine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2010; 19:48 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Concur with Stepheng3. --Bsherr (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just to clarify, I'd be for wrapping this template around {{Infobox Settlement}} providing someone volunteers for that job before this template is deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2010; 14:41 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bsherr. --ddima.talk 01:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. The flexibility of the main template outweighs the convenience of a wrapper, IMO. PC78 (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (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:Cleancat 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. Ruslik_Zero 12:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is redundant with {{Cleanup}} and {{Multiple issues}}. It should be orphaned by replacement with one of these two Template:Cleanup or a more specific maintenance tag. Bsherr (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep exactly how is this redundant with {{Cleanup}} or with {{Multiple issues}} ? Both of those are article templtes, this is a category template. It says "category" in the text, whereas the two you point out both say "article". 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true of Template:Multiple issues, which I hadn't noticed. But Template:Cleanup should work for categories once the edit request is executed. --Bsherr (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edit request is under debate, so this should not be deleted. We should not delete things just because the other thing might be adjusted to take up its function. That should occur first. This request is therefore premature. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, this is redundant to {{cleanup}}. Redirecting there once there's consensus on how to update {{cleanup}} is a simple resolution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note, I think individual review of the transclusions would be best in order to determine whether they are still required, and then whether another template would be best, but ultimately redirecting is just fine. --Bsherr (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge (as appropriate) per above. We don't need to implement a solution before discussing the fate of this template. PC78 (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if the decision at template talk:cleanup is to not implement it for categories, then it would matter. As it is, they have decided to suspend changes for the moment. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The correct venue to discuss a merge would be here. The issue at that page appears to be a disagreement on how to implement the change, not whether or not it should be merged. PC78 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I, and I'm sure very many others too, perceive article maintenance templates very differently from category maintenance templates, I don't see {{cleanup}} as a viable replacement for this one. __meco (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{cleanup}} uses an mbox, so it will automatically format as a category maintenance template when used on a category. Does this address your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. {{Cleanup}} can now be used in category space and will do the same job as this template. There's no longer any reason to keep IMO, but a redirect is also an option. PC78 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we can't just merge these, as it will significantly affect the wording/future of {{cleanup}}. Currently it's namespace-neutral, but any time someone wants to change it they'll have to maintain compatibility with categories and probably other namespaces as well. The "multiple namespaces" functionality refers to the template's ability to be placed on a talk page. It was never designed to work with categories. It seems illogical to bunch more functionality together, creating more complex wikicode that's harder to maintain when we can just specialize. This template shouldn't need a namespace-detector beyond "article-talk-other", and if we keep things simple and specialized, we can remove the more complex detector it currently has. There's no reason to bother with namespace-detection because editors should know which namespace they're editing. Why make the MW parser do extra work? --NYKevin @249, i.e. 04:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum Someone is probably going to point out that we shouldn't worry about performance. I'm not worrying about performance, mostly. I'm mostly worried about making this template easy for us to maintain by keeping its wikicodebase small. A simple {{ambox|whatnot}} would be great, but since we need categories and such, it is reasonable to add more stuff. It isn't reasonable to add a namspace detector, however, because the editor already knows the namespace by the time he uses the template, so the template doesn't need to figure the namespace out on its own. Also, just because the developers tell you not to worry about performance doesn't mean you should immediately run and consume as much as you can. --NYKevin @254, i.e. 05:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • NYKevin, I'd submit that it's more important to have templates that are easy to use than maintain. Rather than being familiar with separate templates for cleanup for each namespace, isn't it easier to just know and use one? That was the goal. --Bsherr (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • These arguments don't have much merit, IMHO. Recent changes to {{cleanup}} have not made it any more difficult to use, and it's debatable whether or not it has become any more complex or harder to maintain. There is also no reason for any fundamental changes in the future. It was already being used in multiple namespaces, so extending that to category space was a logical step. There's a clear advantage for having a singular template for this purpose. PC78 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2010 (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:HIGNFY 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. Ruslik_Zero 12:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only line-up change to the programme has been Angus Deayton's replacement with guest hosts, and so there is no navigational benefit of this template. Guests captains are not significant enough to the show to be included. This template could only serve a use if it were to include some more notable guest hosts, which would be near impossible to select without straying into WP:OR. U-Mos (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, wasn't aware that existed. It illustrates my point wonderfully. U-Mos (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you included the guest hosts (and who's to decide who is notible and who is not) the box would become cluttered and hard to navigate. The one currently gives you a redirect to the list and is currently fine as it navigates you to the right place with a short and sweet format. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2010 (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:Start infobox page 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) 02:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start infobox page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of this template is to place the documentation for a sidebar template even with the template on the left of the page. It's used on a relatively very small minority of sidebar templates. It contravenes the documented best practice for Template:Documentation, which is for the documentation to be placed below the template. The reason for this best practice, and the reason that the template should be deleted, is that any alternative placement of the documentation confuses the separation between the template and its documentation by overriding the spacial barrier that normally exists between them. It also unnecessarily narrows the presentation of the template documentation. I propose the template be orphaned and then deleted. Bsherr (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunno. This is arguably useful for such cases where the documentation would otherwise be pushed off the top of the page, there is still a clear distinction between template and documentation, and it doesn't contravene any template space guidelines that I know of. It could do with a rename to make it clear that it's a documentation template, but otherwise I'm not seeing the harm. PC78 (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, we should get rid. This was a good-faith but rather idiosyncratic attempt to format template documentation for infoboxes so that it wasn't pushed down the page, but a far preferable solution is for the template itself to be hidden on its own page and for any samples to be shown in the doc instead (see {{infobox football biography 2}} for instance). This was pretty much single-handedly deployed by Sardanaphalus, who hasn't edited in nearly two years at this point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:38, 6 October 2010 (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:Catmore frigates of the 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 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catmore frigates of the (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, appears to have been replaced by other templates (e.g., {{cathead navy frigates}}) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 4 October 2010 (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:Non-DCAU DC TV animation 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. Ruslik_Zero 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-DCAU DC TV animation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is a navbox that is too broad spectrumed in name-alone to be helpful, let alone content. By definition, any animated piece that was not done by DC Animated Universe would fit the parameters for this box. Conversly, the pages populated are fairly narrowly included to only include DC Comics male superheroes (excluding other DC Comics animated TV shows and features (Mad; Wonder Woman)). Delete as the parameter and scope makes this an essentially unusable template. Sharp962 (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your only valid objection seems to be to the title, which I do find to be clumsy. However, this is clearly the result of setting limits to its content, your claim of a lack thereof notwithstanding. As there is one Template: Marvel Animation and another Template: Marvel Animated Universe, this appears to be almost perfectly analogous, except that the DC one at hand is limited (there's that word again) enough to disallow direct-to-video (VHS or DVD) or theatrical (e.g., the 1940s Superman shorts) productions. In fact, the first named Marvel navbox should by its title contain everything that the other one does, but it doesn't; come to that, there is nothing there earlier than 2006, but there are quite a few Marvel-based cartoons of the 1960s, 70s and 80s inexplicably (given that title) not listed there. You'll find no explanation or description of a further limitation of any kind there. Consequently, the spectrum of the template under discussion is less broad than that one (or at least has fewer productions qualifying for inclusion at this date; both are likely to grow, of course), and it is at least equally usable (I don't even understand that claim). One vote for not deleting here (You want to post a complaint on that Marvel template's talk page about the numerous items whose absences are inexplicable, then once they are up nominate it for deletion as well, you'll invalidate most of my support of this one). A more concise title, on the other hand.... 173.184.19.140 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel Animation is a specific company (and the films that comprise it are produced by the company); and the Marvel Animated Universe is a specific animation inset of Marvel entertainment from the 90's and has article to accompany. The template links to ALL DC animation, and not specific sub-sets like the aforementioned templates you mentioned above. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
One has to have that inside information to understand that, as the template does not suggest that limitation at all, other than its title being a link to the article you mention. Besides, Marvel Animation has existed as a company since just about 1980, while the article's infobox says it was "founded" in "2008." This also contradicts the previously mentioned fact that the template's content goes back to 2006. On the other hand, the text there states that it "was incorporated in 2008...." Not the same thing at all, as many companies existed for years before incorporating. That is "an essentially unusable [or useless?] template," a term I still see as totally inapplicable to the one nominated for deletion. There is not all that much in this one when compared to a huge number of others and it is not the fault of the editor who made it that there are no available subsets for any of these (save the Super Friends which has its own template but no grounds for not including its overall article here, and the 1966-69 Filmation cycle which is too small to deserve its own). Furthermore, given my previous explanation of the statement's inaccuracy it is indefensible to say it "includes ALL DC animation." This is even allowing for your previous exclusion of the DC Animated Universe material, which you did not repeat here, and you even emphasized the word "all" this time. (BTW, you did that with caps, and if you don't know Wikipedia well enough to know how to emphasize with italics or boldface here, how do you qualify for the standing to nominate something for deletion?) Again, this template covers only cartoon TV series: no theatrical, TV or video features, and not the 1940s Superman shorts, simply not "ALL [non-DCAU] DC animation." If you feel the need to make such a false statement to support your position, it must be lacking valid support. 173.184.31.20 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2010 (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/2010_October_4&oldid=1146552705"