Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 31

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Doctor Who season episode list (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template contains information which is contained within List of Doctor Who serials, the information is crammed into an infobox, increasing the height by about 50%. Losing the template would be of little consequence to pages as it's only recently been added, with little discussion I may add. The template screws up page formatting (at least on 1024 and 800 resolutions) pushing the image down and requires it to be moved, which goes against the purpose of the Doctor Who style guide. Matthew 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Peregrine Fisher 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: there is a category at the bottom of every page with the same info. Laïka 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: same layout on simpsons, family guy, lost etc... no reason to delete. Jonesy702 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment well if there is a broad concensus in the Doctor Who editor community that this is desired, then I can see no reason why it cannot stay per User:Jonesy702. However, I agree with Matthew that it screws up layout of many of the Doctor Who pages, for something that isn't really necessary. The fact that I have not seen much of a "concensus"-building proces before this was added makes me lean towards Delete --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --Quadratus 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not fond of it either, I think it doesn't look too nice. But it could prove useful. I'm leaning towards a Delete but I am not 100% sure. --GracieLizzie 21:20, 31 March 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Classical work infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Currently there are 0 links to this template. The template's talk page indicates that its use was deprecated by consensus long ago – it was deemed impractical and unsuited to its task; the whole infobox concept doesn't really work for the articles in question. — Turangalila (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. See Template talk:Classical work infobox for the earlier discussion of these issues. Opus33 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But why classical music pieces don't need infoboxes? Wooyi 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer to Wooyi is that classical pieces are too varied. The kind of information you might want to summarize about a Bruckner symphony is totally different from about a Palestrina motet, or an opera by John Adams. The desired information just isn't consistent enough to be able to summarize it in an infobox. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be no objections to the deletion of this, but for the record I wholly support it as well. EldKatt (Talk) 11:55, 7 April 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This template does not aid navigation and is actually confusing. Its content is a short table that lists communist "leaders", "countries", and "creators". However, I cannot understand why Trotsky is mentioned as a "leader" of the USSR, while Lenin is not, or why Marx is affiliated with the PRC and Engels with the USSR. The template is currently unused in any of the 6 articles it links and, in any case, its content is better covered by {{communism}}. I am skipping the customary step of requesting clarification from the template's creator as s(he) has been inactive for two months although I have, of course, placed a notice on her/his talk page. -- Black Falcon 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this template is rather confusing, and possibly misleading. Gracenotes^T § 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, not representative of article content. –Pomte 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment It's doubtful that any association between cells in the same row is intended. Looks like a wikiproject open tasks template, intended for use on userpages, not intended for article space navigation purposes. --Random832 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. The one place where the template is transcluded is on the creator's user page. However, I still don't see why it's necessary to create a template for this instead of a simple wikitable. If the consensus is to delete the template, would the closing admin please copy-paste the table to User:Kubanik's user page as a courtesy (in case s/he becomes active again and wishes to use the table)? Thank you, Black Falcon 06:29, 7 April 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.