Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 12

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Jul. 15, '06 [18:10] <freak|talk>

Template:Http://imdb.com/title/tt0370433/ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Having merely a URL in a template makes no sense; this might — if at all — only be helpful for one or two articles anyway, so... Delete? N-true 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, you wouldn't create Template:Http://www.google.com, would you? Invitatious (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Longer than what it expands to, would be speedy A3 if it were an article (nothing but a restatement of the title). --ais523 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is silly. --circuitloss 19:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. {{imdb title}} already fulfils such purposes, in a much better way. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC) ╫
• Delete, obviously.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 17:38, 15 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hilary Duff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, and not even listed on WP:BOX. CameoAppearance 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unused. —Mira 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment any idea why the DoD would have a picture of Hilary Duff? --M@rēino 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe they like Hilary Duff?QuizQuick 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to "Fans of Hilary Duff". QuizQuick 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, shouldn't be a template. Remember, templates were created to help organize and display the encyclopedic content as well as make common maintenance and administrative tasks easier; this template does none of that. --Cyde↔Weys 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, Cyde, I may be missing something, but how do {{welcome}} and variants help to organize, display, maintain, or be administrative to the encyclopedia? Fredil Yupigo01:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  The same goes for the entire content of Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. The answer, of course, is that templates were not created to do only what Cyde claims. User:Angr 12:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I personally don't like {{welcome}} as impersonal "welcome" messages are rather disingenuous, but it does help Wikipedia by getting new users up to date on our core policies. A "Fans of Hillary Duff" userbox does absolutely nothing of the sort; it's worthless. --Cyde↔Weys 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  And 700 different stub templates using almost the same text, some of which describe some of the most obscure and (I'm going to get killed for saying this) useless topics help Wikipedia how? I can't even remember 10 of them. Fredil Yupigo 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User:BigDT uses it.--Runcorn 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Thank you, Runcorn, for your message on my talk page letting me know about this discussion. Please note for anyone who cares that that particular page is part of a mass substitution of userboxes. Nothing is transcluded - there is just a link for reference. I used special:allpages to grab the names of everything starting with "Template:User" and then had a little Visual Studio macro go through and turn them into {{subst:userboxname}} {{tl|userboxname}}. I did A-H thinking it would be somewhat useful for the GUS. But it turned out to be more work than I thought it would be because such a surprising number of userboxes were malformed. (A bunch were missing closing /div tags - I can only assume that they were copied from the same original source.) So anyway, I decided it wasn't worth messing with unless there was a specific request. I have no attachment to anything linked to from that page (note: they are linked, not transcluded) and no particular concern one way or the other what is deleted. As a matter of general principle, I support deleting stuff nobody is using and is not likely to use, so delete this one. ;) BigDT 23:52, 25 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Template:Bee Train (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bad nav template. Templates should be made for, say, a group of work where it's very obvious why they'd be grouped together. When I think of .hack, I don't think of Tsubasa Chronicle, or Noir. This might be something for the See also sections of articles, but definitely not it's own nav template. If more nav templates are made like this.. it could get messy.. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have proposed the template on the talk page and since no one really cared about it, I just went ahead and created it. Moreover, I assume, you don't think of Bald: The Making of 'THX 1138' when you think of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, do you? :) Yet, {{George Lucas' films}} isn't nominated for deletion. Neither are {{Uwe Boll Films}}, {{Alfred Hitchcock's films}}, {{Clint Eastwood}}, {{Roman Polański}}, etc. Here are more examples. --Koveras 09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Lucas's relation to his films is a lot more significant and known than Bee Train (I stress the known part, as nav templates are for navigation). Same with the others, especially Hitchcock! And actually, I DO think of THX when I think of Star Wars.. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, like I said, if you want to show the relation between the different series, this should be done with the "See also" section, that's what it's there for! A nav template isn't supposed to be "oh, also, you might find this interesting", but rather, "These articles are directly related to this article". -- Ned Scott 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I still say keep. :) --Koveras 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's good to know what other series Bee Train has made, and this template does the job properly. Kazu-kun 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is good to know, but that's not what a nav template is for. This is needless article clutter and ugly. The template is poorly formatted and takes up more space than it needs to, even if it was useful. There's a section called "See also", that's where these notes should go. I see that you are new to Wikipedia? There are many ways to reference information, and there are many ways to make nav templates. Nav templates are supposed to only be used when there is a group of articles concerning one subject. It's also needless, as much of the .hack nav is already done by the .hack nav template. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agree: it's page clutter--Brownlee 11:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• RELISTED from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 17 --William Allen Simpson 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I don't get it, what in the world is wrong with other works template. What do you assume everyone knows Bee Train's other work? I don't see a problem with keeping it, showing the studio's other work. Leave it be. I mean a See also section just creates a long long list. So there would be no point to either.

--ShortShadow 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I fail to see how its usefulness justifies its existence.--Runcorn 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - While I'm not entirely sure of the need for navigation templates at all, they don't generally clutter articles (as they are located at the bottom) and apparently most people want them. The analogy with George Lucas was brought up, and this is a valid one. Although perhaps not necessarily true for all anime studio's, studio's like Bee Train and Ghibli leave their mark on the anime they produce, as much as George Lucas does. Shinobu 04:18, 28 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Db-bio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template lists a page about someone for deletion that lacks enough details to have an article. Often the page is deleted as the auther is working on the page and will repost the article if it's deleted with such a template. With templates like {{tl:notability}} and {{tl:afd}}, I think wikipedia can do without this one... Delete -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.70 (talk • contribs).

• Speedy the speedy. Only false or deragatory articles about people should be "speedy" deleted. PVeankman 11:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep -- This is a very, very common template, and there are things such as the {{inuse}} tag that address the concern of users not being able to finish their articles. That, and I can't possibly take your nomination seriously when you don't even sign yourself. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 11:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - PVeankman, you should be aware that we are discussing deletion of the template, not the removal of the CSD policy. The policy remains regardless of the fate of the template. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 11:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Good point! If the policy remains and the template goes, we'd just write {{db|non-notable person}}. So what's the point of deleting the template...??? If the intent is to change WP:CSD policy then TfD is the wrong place for that. In both cases this TfD should go away post-haste. Weregerbil 11:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, no we shouldn't burden the AfD process with all the school kids' self-bios that get created in a constant flow. Weregerbil 11:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I would agree with Weregerbil. There are so many articles being created with not much content than "My brother Greg is th greatest. He live at 555 Main Street...". Going through a full AfD with all of these would swap the AfD page. Travelbird 11:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think you guys are likewise missing the point of this nomination. It is about deleting this TEMPLATE, not the policy. Other tags such as {{db-a7}} would remain anyway, and vanity pages would still be subject to CSD. The only concern of this nomination is deleting the template. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 11:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. We get literally hundreds of articles that exactly fit the db-bio template everyday. Removing the template would only mean we would have to create it again. Ludicrous. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Fine, {{db-a7}} would remain anyway but damn if that's not hard to remember. If anything drop the -a* templates, and use the better named versions. --Blowdart 12:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Why do we need to immediately delete articles? I read the policy Wikipedia is not paper and the article does not expressly forbid making your own articles. We have so many article about people and there is no reason to be selective unless server space is an issue. Henry Bigg 1986 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please state a criterion under which this would be speedy deletable. If you don't have one, please ask for an ordinary delete. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Henry, please see WP:DVAIN. The policy is made very clear on the matter. --UlTiMuS - ( U | T | C ) 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep {{db-bio}} is a lot easier for editors to remember than {{db-a7}}. If you wanted to cull a duplicate, much better to get rid of {{db-a7}}, but really is it worth it? Is the duplication killing us? Gwernol 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - per all above. --mtz206 (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. NawlinWiki 12:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we have hundreds of bio articles, why must we be selective? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plinoifax (talk • contribs).

• Comment You're completely missing the whole point of this vote. See above. And regarding your concerns, see WP:DVAIN. (|-- UlTiMuS - ( U | T | C ) 12:52, 12 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted --Runcorn 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Q (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is redundant to {{Quotation}}, {{Quotebox}}, {{Quote box}}, {{"}} and several others at Cat:Quotation templates. Only five articles used it, and I've just eliminated it from all of them, so it's only used in user and discussion namespaces. Plus, it seems to encourage misuse of quotes in that:

1. it's used for short quotes that would be better placed inline, in their proper context.
2. it only allows for an author of the quote, and not the required full citation (when it was said/written, in what piece of work, who published it). (The best place for a full citation is probably a footnote.)
3. the "on (topic)" tends to be redundant or silly; often, it's the same as the article title.

Hence, I think there's a very good reason why Template:Q is so rarely seen on Wikipedia (at least nowadays), despite its ubiquity on Uncyclopedia. I would say it's had its day, if it was ever going to get one. _SeahenNeonMerlin 08:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Nom -- Q only serves to perpetuate a style that Uncyclopedia rightfully mocks.--M@rēino 13:35, 12 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 23:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Template:R joke (edit talk links history)

Useless, unencyclopedic. The cat should go with it, only redirect to use this listed on RFD. Kotepho 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, silly. —Keenan Pepper 04:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --mtz206 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What were they thinking? --circuitloss 19:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• BALEETED! Uh, I mean, Delete.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT [[Delete per nom]]. Fredil Yupigo01:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per twisted words of the template, as follows: "This template exists only for the purpose of humor. Under no circumstances should it be used by a serious encyclopedia." Picaroon9288 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:55, 19 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Jasrocks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As per WP:SIG#Transclusion.2Ftemplate, signature templates put undo stress on the servers, this should instead be put into User:Jasrocks' signature preferences. →LzyGenius 04:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. soz guys, that was a while back. Jasrocks 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete based on consent of author and sole user of template.--M@rēino 13:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• No, do not speedy it. If you do that, you'll leave several hundred relinks pointing to this template. Remove the TFD template from the signature template, subst it, then delete it. But don't speedy it outright, please! Titoxd^(?!?) 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and delete per Titoxd. —Mira 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I tried substing the template myself, but I got bored after a few minutes. I did cut the list in half though. I assume that a bot will do the job. Hbdragon88 07:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete changed the rest to my current template. Please delete it quick! Jasrocks ^Talk 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Obviously, if Jasrocks wants it.--Runcorn 19:45, 25 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was apparently, no one cared RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yoshi characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A navbox linking together a bunch of very minor characters. (Just to give you an idea, exactly one character on this template has a line of dialogue anywhere.) This is a partial duplicate of content recently removed from Template:Mario characters with overwhelming support, and, most damning, this is a navbox for a series so vague it doesn't even merit its own article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Removed "with overwhelming support"? YOU are the one who unilaterally deleted all the charcters from the Mario characters template, without any discussion whatsoever. I also notice that you're engaged in a reverting war with another user regarding the inclusion of the characters. That being said, though, I agree that it should be deleted, perhaps intergrated into Template:Yoshi series Hbdragon88 05:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It was done when I complained about that obtrusive, ugly, awful version of the template, but I didn't do it myself at all. And the discussion here was unanimous, with some minor disagreement over three or four characters, none of which are present on this template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It would have helped to include that discussion when you reverted...I for one don't check WP:CVG first off, I look to the talk page of the template in question first. Hbdragon88 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It doesn't seem terribly useful, but I have no strong feelings either way.--Runcorn 19:43, 25 July 2006 (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 page.