Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 25

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 debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

this template is empty. 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' original them is 0. — AaMcaa (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting first edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or let creator merge into it's user space. This template has come before its time. If the series flops and dies, there will never be a need for this template. On the other hand, if the series is successful and has multiple seasons, then the template would have a need to exist. But the show comes out in 2008 and this is 2007 (granted it's only 7 days before). The template is before its time. --Son (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Son. This template doesn't do anything useful at the moment; the linked articles are all connected in other ways already. If the nwe series becomes a success, a template might be helpful, but it's not needed yet. Terraxos (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Happy‑melon 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy if wanted. SkierRMH (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While it's true that this template was created prematurely, the series debuts in two weeks and has already garnered significant coverage in reliable sources. Some of the T:SCC characters are not linked from other articles as they are new with this series. Deleting it now only to see it justifiably recreated in two weeks is a waste of effort from an editor. - Dravecky (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or at least merge into the terminator template.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Smallville has a template and thats a spin-off series... so what's the difference? Jonesy702 (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2008 (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.

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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete - template duplicates radio and tv templates already existing. --BombBuilder (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting first edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete - redundant
• strong keep; these are not redundant categories, and may -- at least in some cases, ultimately supercede the older categories, provided they have the opportunity to develop. --Mhking (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Combine - combine the two templates, this one is a better version. Kimmy78 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sprawling and redundant template. For the record, I was directed to this discussion as a person who had edited this template but I now support its deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (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.

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete - template duplicates radio and tv templates already existing. --BombBuilder (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting first edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

delete - Redundancies abound. KansasCity (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• strong keep; these are not redundant categories, and may -- at least in some cases, ultimately supercede the older categories, provided they have the opportunity to develop. --Mhking (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete sprawling and redundant template. (This is a template, not a category.) - Dravecky (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was not directed to this discussion. It just happened to be next to the one above to which I was directed. Call it serendipity. - Dravecky (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. As above, redundant and confusing to newbies. Also, I wasn't directed here, I am just a 'frequent flyer' at deletion debates! ><RichardΩ612 14:55, 3 January 2008 (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.

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 debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The template is a red link farm, only few articles exist. Seeing that no article on this has been made in a while, this thing needs to go. ^Mitch32^contribs 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This template is huge, and WP:FA will never accept any article that has it. WP:GA might not either. The categories and lists system is much preferred across Wikipedia. WP:USRD (the United States road project) deleted its templates a while back at debates such as those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents#State highway system templates. CRWP needs to delete its templates, among other things, in order to be successful project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I agree with Rschen7754. The GA and FA projects probably wouldn't pass articles with such a large template on them. The fact that it is a red link farm doesn't bother me; what bothers me is that this template has existed for some time, and those red links were never filled in. It's time to let go of the template. A category also works much better. --Son (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Rschen7754  — master son^{T - C} 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Red Link Farm? I don't see any red links on there. Also, there is stuff you can do with infoboxes that you can't do with categories. It's easier for the users. Also, where does it say that large templates automatically fail FA/GA? You can make it hidden by default and make it pop out if you need it you know. ViperSnake151 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Its been an ongoing war - the original version of this was a redlink farm.^Mitch32^contribs 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Permalink is here. --Phirazo 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. while the template was huge and ugly, that is a reason to fix it, not a valid reason for deletion. It has been cleaded up in the meantime (although I suggest all secondary road links go). Also, if this gets deleted, please don't consider it as a precedent for other better maintained provincial road navboxes. --Qyd (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All the templates need to go because lists and categories are a better way to go. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and I disagree. --Qyd (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why did people say that lists and categories are better when we were having similar TFDs in the US? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. But it sounds extreme. I suppose this is not the right place to discuss that. --Qyd (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would consider creating 20 different "small" templates for browsing extreme. That is definitely how it is viewed at WP:USRD, which has been more successful than WP:CRWP. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, all this can be replaced by browsing in the infobox. Just an AWB run is needed to fix. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (GMT)
• Comment, I set the state mode to collapsed so that it can be expanded if the user wants to use it. ViperSnake151 20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It still needs to go. It's excess clutter. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - How WikiProject U.S. Roads handled their navboxes does not imply that WikiProject Canada Roads should handle them the same way. There is a current discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads#Navboxes. Since this is not a mass nomination, I suggest that any consensus reached there should apply to the dozens of navboxes we have on hundreds of articles. Otherwise, we'll waste time going through these one by one. –Pomte 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • USRD has been a successful project. Don't you want CRWP to be a successful project? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the collapsed version. Now that it has been collapsed, the size of the template is less of an issue. Whatever has been decided upon at USRD only applies to articles and templates within the scope of USRD. It has no bearing on CRWP. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is redundant to the excellent lists and categories system that has been established. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • How is it redundant? Please elaborate. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, there is an excellent system of navigating around the Manitoba provincial highways articles through lists and categories. This template system attempts to duplicate it but fails to do so. Therefore, it is redundant. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Huge, redundant box filled with red links. Lists and categories are sufficient. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Red links aren't half the problem that blue links are. It is the blue links which clutter up the "What links here" of articles, rendering that useless. Categories and lists are sufficient and a much better option for almost all of these navigation-box lists. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That wealth of back links is what gives Wikipedia the high rating in searches. Not that this, or your comment has anything to do with tfd. --Qyd (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (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.

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 debate was delete per creator's request. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jay email (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is unencyclopedic, and will not be used within the context of the encyclopedia. The template namespace doesn't exist for the convenience of an editor. This was moved to the userspace by Edmundwoods (talk · contribs), but was moved back by Whjayg (talk · contribs). — Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added Template:Jay Archive box (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to this discussion as it has the same issue. ~ Paul^C/_T+ 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: To Aecis, why are you doing this, is it fun? What is wrong with the box? Don’t give me some unencyclopedic excuse! Would the “box” hurts or can do any damage to anybody’s reputation? Plenty more work to be done in WIKI but you chose to find my box and ask for deletion, don’t tell me this is why you join wiki! - Jay (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with the box, is that this is not what the template namespace is for. The fact that it's harmless is irrelevant. Something like this belongs in your userspace, but you reverted the move with an absurd edit summary. Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Im here to contribute and if you like to do what you do, just DO IT! I dont want to waste time fighting like a little kid. - Jay (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy Non-encyclopedic userbox. JPG-GR (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (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.

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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be useful in any way. It's supposed to be a nav template, but it is only used on one article. Most of the people and groups mentioned there are not linked, because they don't have articles, and aren't notable (some of the articles were deleted as NN). Putting the template on existing articles about people who are mentioned there wouldn't be useful either, as they are pretty loosely related. — Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not a particularly useful template. Some of these articles don't even mention how they're linked to Maayan; others are only linked pretty loosely. If it's necessary to connect these articles together, the better way to do it would be with a category. Terraxos (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (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.

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 debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template is obsolete. It has been since the UPN-WB to CW merger. Please delete. Thanks. MaidService (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that these are the only edits of MaidService (talk · contribs), and ThaCleaningLady (talk · contribs) proceeded to redirect all of the templates to their CW counterparts.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits have been to redirect these templates to the corresponding CW templates and to conduct this TFD and related CFDs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:MaidService. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the sock puppetry page has been archived and confirmed please see instead Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MaidService. Thank you. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete - redirects should also be deleted. --BombBuilder (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting first edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment as first edits of MaidService (talk · contribs), ThaCleaningLady (talk · contribs), and BomBuilder (talk · contribs), this TfD is suspect as far as I'm concerned. --Mhking (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Suspect it certainly is. However, the merger took place over a year ago, right? It's about time for the cleanup to take place. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even with the suspicion, very few of the station articles continue to use them and their only value is historical at this point, something which List of WB affiliates and List of UPN affiliates can cover. Nate · (chatter) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've report sockpuppetry. These are unusual first edits. Please comment at this page. Thank you. EvanS • talk |sign here 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sock puppets tagged all these articles. Changes that the socks made to those templates should be reverted. --Son (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Son. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The WB and UPN have dissolved, sock or not. These templates are useless and their historical info is recorded at List of WB affiliates. The redirects should not remain as some affiliates have not moved onto CW. I have removed all transclusions and incoming links. –Pomte 07:14, 2 January 2008 (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.

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Swiss town/upd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Merry Christmas! Here's an orphan infobox template that, for some inexplicable reason, is 338 kb. — bd2412 T 04:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wow. That is a whole lotta code. Orphaned and of questionable usefulness in this form. JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like this was an attempt to create an "updater" template that could be rolled out extremely quickly when changes are made to the neighboring_municipalities parameter (whether it be the style of presentation or the actual content). Each town could be updated by simply changing the infobox used in the article to subst:Infobox Swiss town/upd. Very good idea, in my opinion. --- RockMFR 06:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but it is unused in practise, and is about ten times larger than Wikipedia's recommended page limit. There must be a more efficient way to do this. bd2412 T 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unneeded. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - clever, but this could be done so much easier with a bot or elbow grease. Happy‑melon 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - echoing Happy Melon as well. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It was used in the last update by bot and can serve as a sample template for future updates. If it's considered too long, the neighboring municipalities can be cut as they are now in the article. -- User:Docu
  • Was it used by a bot in a way that could not be accomplished in a different namespace (e.g. Wikipedia wikiproject space)? bd2412 T 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • RockMFR explained in his post on Dec 25 how it was used. It doesn't matter which namespace it's in, but as it relates to Infobox Swiss town, it should be fine where it is, as is Template:Infobox Swiss town/testcases -- User:Docu
• Keep. No good reason has been given for deletion. Its usefulness has been shown. Size is not a good reason for deletion. Neither is a subjective measurement of how easy a bot could make such updates. --- RockMFR 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it take more of the Wikipedia servers' elbow grease to transclude larger templates? This is, after all, hundreds of kilobytes (of which the end user only sees a minute fraction), so I think in this case that size does matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and don't worry about performance. 3 kb has been wasted on this discussion, and many more are being wasted on things much less useful. You're free to collaborate on a more efficient method, but do not delete until this is completely useless. –Pomte 10:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The footnote at the bottom of that page would seem to indicate otherwise, with something of this size. bd2412 T 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you are referring to the addendum, the example of images involves images being viewed multiple times. This template is used only once in a very long while, and sparingly. Furthermore, this is not a client-side issue. –Pomte 23:57, 2 January 2008 (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.