Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 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. — Malcolm (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Half-Life games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is redundant due to Template:Valve games, which contains all the same links as the TfD in question and also displays the other products by Valve. The best course of action would be to delete Template:Half-Life games and replace all usage of that template with Template:Valve games. — Sabre 12:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• That makes sense Krang 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed - the template is redundant. Qjuad 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• I suppose I have to agree. There aren't so many HL games they need their own template. --Katana314 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - all the HL games are in the VALVe template anyway. The Adept 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the Valve games template fills in the empty gap left by the deletion of the Half-Life games template. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, {{valve games}} is small enough to conveniently replace {{Half-Life games}}. Gracenotes^T § 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - Where a world setting has a number of distinct composing works, elements of which have been promoted to their own articles, it is customary for the world setting to have a navigation template separate from the other works made by the producers. This style is used consistently for other game series, such as Quake, Unreal, the FFVII setting media productions, The Sims, and so on. TV shows and books regularly have such templates, expanded with links to the articles on major characters and key locations. I see no reason to treat a computer game any differently. LinaMishima 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, augment Template:Half-Life, and following something similar to Template:StarCraft, have the links for the games and merge all the other random HL templates into that one: that cannot be done under one named "Half-Life games" as that is not representative of the contents of such a template. That template can then be used in tandem with Template:Valve games, in much the same way that Template:StarCraft is used with Template:Blizzard games. In any case, there are insufficient games in the Half-Life series, unlike in Unreal and Quake, to justify the existence of a template dedicated only Half-Life game links. -- Sabre 10:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand I fail to see how Half-life is any less deserving of a template than StarCraft, which has only ONE real, finished, non-vaporware, game to it's name, and maybe one or two novels, wheras Half-Life now has a handful of games, and is even more notable than StarCraft in terms of making an impact on the western game industry. If you delete this but keep the StarCraft template, you'll be hypocritical. 24.181.48.246 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You fail to understand the differences in purpose of the templates. The StarCraft template has much more than simply the game titles: it covers all topics. Convert Template:Half-Life into that style, merging all information from Template:Half-Life games, Template: Half-Life characters, Template:Half-Life enemies and any other random ones into a single template (any arguments regarding "There's so many articles though!" etc are already defunct because said articles aren't actually in line with WP:FICTION's idea of treating articles as concepts and only breaking them off from articles if the subject can stand on its own notability). Template:StarCraft does the job of all those templates rolled into one. Templates which simply list the games are pointless when there is already a better one that covers it in Template:Valve games. I made a quick skeleton of one such template, you can see it here (if implemented via WP:FICTION, you wouldn't need templates for the characters or enemies because they would be contained in a single article, with only those with individual notability - ie Freeman, headcrabs - having articles split off from the concept article. See the FA Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, or the GA Characters of StarCraft, or even Characters in the Halo series).You also might want to consider the full factors of your argument when ranking games in importance: StarCraft is essentially the benchmark RTS game of its time, in exactly the same way Half-Life is for the FPS genre, but that is not directly relevant to this discussion. -- Sabre 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, delete - Valve is Half-Life, Half-Life is Valve. Until such time that Valve has three franchises running (like Blizzard does) I don't think there's a need for this. The comparison with Starcraft is not suitable since Valve has only made a few small stand-alone games in addition to Half-Life, and all of them are based on the GoldSrc or Source engines of the HL games. --Joffeloff 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as {{Valve games}} essentially does the same thing. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Value game template seems enough, if not more accurate. -- 86.134.154.9 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is accurate and avoids confusion

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. Mike Peel 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Template is deprecated and no longer transcluded except by itself and Portal:Islam (and I can't for the life of me find what part of Portal:Islam has {{ar}}...). --Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, must have been database lag; the template is no longer transcluded on Portal:Islam (or anywhere else). --Darkwind (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Subst and delete unused and I do not think that we will use again. Carlosguitar 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Subst and delete as unused. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 19 October 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. Mike Peel 20:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Template adds a link to radio navigational templates that points to a recently deleted article. — JPG-GR 06:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I can't find a valid reason for this template to have been created in the first place; it's easy enough to just use the {{seealso}} template. ~ Sebi _[talk] 09:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unused. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:41, 19 October 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. Mike Peel 20:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:User language-0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template is redundant, being a "double redirect" per se, where it is based off {{User blank-0}}, which could and should be used instead. — -Sox207 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, broken and pointless. The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:40, 19 October 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. Mike Peel 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Template is redundant, being a "double redirect" per se, where it is based off {{User blank}}, which could and should be used instead. — -Sox207 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something in the syntax, this doesn't accomplish anything new. Delete - Che Nuevara 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• It seems like most transclusions of this template come from these templates. Substituting those first would be a good idea. That said, delete as a needlessly thin wrapper of the {{user blank}} template series. Gracenotes^T § 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Subst and delete as per Gracenotes above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 19 October 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.