Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 31

< October 30	November 1 >

October 31 edit

Template:Captain-majors of Ceilão 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 userfy. Placing at User:Blackknight12/Captain-majors of Ceilão. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Captain-majors of Ceilão (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Red-linked navbox with only use on a single "list of" article (see List of Captain-majors of Ceilão). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot about these, can you please move them to my userspace instead of deleting, thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2011 (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:Captains of Ceilão 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 userfy. Now at User:Blackknight12/Captains of Ceilão. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Captains of Ceilão (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Red-linked navbox only used on a "list of" article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot about these, can you please move them to my userspace instead of deleting, thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (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:Cite database 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite database (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Under development for over a year. This is supposed to be a meta-template, but editors are stumbling across it and using it in articles. After discussion, I just don't see anything that {{cite web}} can't handle. Userfy if desired. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, after the discussion last September over exactly how the template should be styled ended in stalemate I think that was the end of the matter. The aim seems to be to fulfil the requirement of a given style guideline to cite "computer databases" consistently, but the thing is that practically everything we cite on the modern Web (or via journals, in fact) is drawn from a database. I doubt that this additional layer of abstraction is going to pan out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy or whatever). As it currently stands this template was just forking off some website citations (to actual databases and to definite non-databases) without discussion, to not have italics. —innotata 14:05, 31 October 2011 (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:Carlos Saldanha 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carlos Saldanha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. The director works for Blue Sky Studios, so this is 100% overlapped by the Blue Sky navbox. It serves no purpose that the Blue Sky navbox does not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is five films in the template--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my reasoning? The number of films has nothing to do with my rationale. The fact that it's fully overlapped by another template, because the guy works for only one company, is my reasoning. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this proves anything, it's that WP:NENAN has become commonly-enough accepted now that people have started using it improperly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what your reasoning is. There is no mention of Saldanha in the Blue Sky Studious template and there is five films. The template shouldnt be deleted.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, since the films are a complete subset. or, perhaps redirect so it can be revived if the director directs for another studio? but oviously, still remove if it is redirected, to avoid having a repeated navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The template is fine. There's no reason to delete it. --Rayous (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not freaking listening? IT'S. ONE. HUNDRED. PERCENT. REDUNDANT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop shouting and stay civil. Don't act like a 2 year old just because somebody doesnt agree with you.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Put it out of its misery. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination and some of the discussion above has been on a false premise. If one wished for a navigation template at Carlos Saldanha, Template:Blue Sky Studios would not do because some of the films it includes were not directed by Saldanha. Therefore the template is not redundant even though all the films it contains are also contained in the BSS template. However, I do not know whether the Saldanha article needs (or even benefits from) such a template and this is the matter which could sensibly have been raised and discussed. Thincat (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just say keep or delete, don't waffle. Put this out of its freaking misery already! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 2 November 2011 (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.