Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 2

< January 1	January 3 >

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 Speedy Delete (author request). non-admin closure by 12 Noon ^2¢ 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not censored, and I fail to see the use of this template even if 'used for humor' as is mentioned on it. RichardΩ6 12 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I was trying to use it as a more fun alternative to strikeouts, but it turns out it doesn't work. I'm sorry for creating this template. Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I tagged it with {{db-author}} per request on talk page.--12 Noon ^2¢ 00:00, 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter, as well as the policy WP:BITE, I think that this template (as well as the spirit which lies behind it) is fundamentally detrimental to Wikipedia, and should be deleted.

It's true that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that all other functions are secondary to this; social networking is not the purpose of the community. No one disputes this. However, Wikipedia does need to recruit and retain contributors; editors, not webspace, are our most important resource. Censuring, or threatening to censure, those editors who spend too much time on "social networking" activities is not likely to achieve anything other than alienating them and driving them away. Provided that they are not being disruptive, and are not impeding other editors' efforts to build the encyclopedia, there is no reason to warn them or to subject them to sanctions. If you see such a user, it's fine to try and encourage them to contribute in productive areas; maybe recommend adoption or introduce them to a WikiProject. But threatening to "censure" them is unfriendly, and is not going to make them contribute.

Just think about it logically. Despite fear-mongering from those who warn of a descent into MySpace-like chaos, there's no evidence that "social networking" activities directly harm the encyclopedia. Possibly they indirectly harm it by encouraging the wrong culture - but this small danger is outweighed by the much greater danger of driving away potentially good contributors.

Yes, before anyone points it out, I realise that this template does not assume bad faith or use uncivil wording. But a polite threat is still a threat, and it contributes to the most unfriendly and hostile elements of Wikipedia's culture, and does far more harm than good. We need to end both this template, and the underlying culture of "contribute or get blocked" from which it stems.— Walton^One 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have partially rewritten the template so that it is less harsh and doesn't WP:BITE. Hopefully it will now be more useful as after all, newbies might not be aware of our policies and a polite notice can't hurt. ><RichardΩ6 12 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, good work - I'm glad it no longer includes a reference to "censure by the community". However, I won't withdraw the nomination, because I still believe that the whole underlying concept of this template is fundamentally at fault. Walton^One 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Now that Richard0612 has worded it nicer, I don't believe it is a problem. It is a friendly pointer towards current policy (WP:USER for example). Poeloq (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ While I have much respect for the nominator, and have based much of my attitude on his essay editors matter, I believe that, like the US Constitution does not apply to the French in France, EM does not apply to chit-chat on a user talk page. IMO, the type of user who needs to be reminded that this is not a social network, and is discouraged because of that, is not going to be that great of an asset to the WP project at the current time. I also believe if WP gains a reputation as being tough on chit-chat, it does benefit the project. Editors matter, but who likes whom in Mrs. Crabapple's 3rd period English class does not.--12 Noon ^2¢ 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Change to Redirect to {{Uw-socialnetwork}}.--12 Noon ^2¢ 04:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That template suffers from the same problems. Walton^One 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep now that it's not so biting. This serves a purpose important to Wikipedia. Doczilla (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Change the underlying policy in accordance with WP:EM. The policy at WP:MYSPACE is what needs to go; getting rid of this template will accomplish nothing. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the wording of the policy that's at fault, so much as how people interpret it. This template is a prime example of how it should not be interpreted. Walton^One 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep is true, it reflects policy, its polite, its useful. Why remove it? Editors matter, content matters more. ^Avruchtalk 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- False dichotomy. Yes, content is the most important thing on Wikipedia, but who do you think creates the content? Editors. So keeping editors happy, and encouraging them to contribute, is absolutely essential. I also disagree that "it reflects policy" - the policy just says that Wikipedia is not a social network; it doesn't say that editors who don't make enough encyclopedic edits ought to be subjected to sanctions or blocks. Walton^One 12:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it is a necessary warning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, and if users are here just to chat with each other, then they are wasting our time and resources. The message in the template should have never been an issue. It is the fact that people think that users who are here just to talk aren't harmful to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- They aren't harmful to the project. How are they "wasting our time and resources"? If you just leave them alone, then they won't waste any of your time, and as to resources, webspace isn't an issue on Wikipedia. As long as they don't impede others from working on the encyclopedia, they aren't doing any harm. If the situation were different, and we needed to conserve webspace due to performance concerns, then I would agree that "users who are here just to talk" would be a problem. But that isn't the situation. Walton^One 12:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep This will make wikipedia more effective by not waisting precious keystrokes telling a newb to piss off to myspace. The Last Saxon (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- "telling a newb to piss off to myspace" - that kind of attitude is exactly what is harming the project. "Newbs", as you disparagingly describe them, are tomorrow's generation of editors. Do you want to drive them all away? Walton^One 12:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the template as nominated was ... not great. The current version by Richard0612 is much better, to the point of being even gentler than {{uw-socialnetwork}}. Since we do need these sort of talk message templates, there's no need to delete this specific one. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep I understand Walton One's view completely, but to be honest, I don't believe this template will drive contributors off the project. I've seen more people driven off because they've been given vandalism warnings than because they were given a template like this one. If someone is using Wikipedia only to talk to other users, to create lots of sub-pages, and not improving the encyclopedia at all, then they should be encouraged to edit the encyclopedia, whether with a hand-written message or a template like this one. The new wording, however, improves the template greatly, and actually looks friendlier now. Acalamari 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to {{Uw-socialnetwork}} so the task of improving the wording isn't split across two places, and we don't need two versions of this. I think boilerplate messages are silly in general, but consensus has decided to have them, so this one stays as it cites policy in a civil tone that's as likely to encourage as it is to drive away. –Pomte 00:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to {{Uw-socialnetwork}}, which delivers essentially the same message, but has less risk of giving offense to newbies. (There's no need to have two templates for this one purpose.) --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If it becomes necessary to give someone a gentle prod, then this seems to me a situation calling for a personal message rather than a template. If it's a matter of someone using WP to host excessive personal content, then I think a template like {{Uw-webhost}} would be more better - though that template probably ought to be softened a bit.--Kubigula (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to {{Uw-socialnetwork}}. This is a redundant template. User warning templates starting with "uw-" should be considered superseding the ones they replace; such is the case here. -AMatulić (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to {{Uw-socialnetwork}} - Redundant. If you want to play with the wording of this template, do it there. - 52 Pickup (talk) 20:31, 8 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 Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G2. This was likely a test page, and has been deleted as such. Acalamari 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a broken infobox [doesn't fit the standard one], not sure where it would be used even if it worked. RichardΩ6 12 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete seems to be a failed attempt at creating a template/infobox that would have been doubtful if working anyhow. Poeloq (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a test page. Template transcludes itself. JPG-GR (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as test page that should have been in a sandbox. Doczilla (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Waist of space. The Last Saxon (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, probably a test. Not useful at any rate. Lankiveil (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Delete as a very odd effort to create an infobox (possibly speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2). Happy‑melon 21:35, 4 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 Speedy Delete (author request). Non-admin closure by 12 Noon ^2¢ 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Already exists in userspace at User:Wolfdog1/Krypto the Superdog, no need to have a dupe in Template: space.Userboxes such as this one shouldn't be there anyway. RichardΩ6 12 19:42, 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 Snowball delete. Acalamari 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Poorly formatted, does not need to be a template. Created by user attempting to re-add this information to the Young Frankenstein (musical) article several times. Is now unused. --omtay 38 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete. The template has only been used to circumvent repeated requests not to add material to Young Frankenstein (musical), (and user has been blocked for doing so). The template of itself is not well-formatted, is difficult to read, and is entirely unneeded in the context of the article on Young Frankenstein (musical), as the pertinent material is already included in the extensive plot synopsis. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. As above, badly formatted, doesn't need to be in a template [doesn't need to exist at all for that matter]. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Serves no imaginable purpose. — Music Maker 5376 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this stupid, pointless thing. Doczilla (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Crappelly coded pointless bullshit. The Last Saxon (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Be civil and assume good faith, please. Happy‑melon 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per JeanColumbia. JPG-GR (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. An inappropriate template all around. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, possibly speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. If the user has been blocked there is unlikely to be dissention. Happy‑melon 21:38, 4 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 Keep The template has been filled w/ articles since the nomination began. SkierRMH (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Navbox in which ~~all~~ most links are red, and it is debatable whether they are notable enough to warrant one. RichardΩ6 12 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep If in doubt, keep it. The Last Saxon (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep What a feeble excuse to delete something because "the links are red". This template is more than valid and once the articles are started there is no reason why they can't develop fully. These are notable towns and places in an area covering 37,000km. Do people want even coverage on wikipedia or what? It will be useful and encyclopedic eenough given time. Why would districts in any other country of the world be regarded as "notable" but not Burma? It is precisely this view of things that increases systematic bias on wikipedia ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 12:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I don't know what the template looked like at nomination, but there are no red links in the existing template. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - per the warload Carter and there are a few editors (I know Sir Bolfeld is one) that have been working hard to create articles about Burma settlements. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - note that the reason for the lack of redlinks is merely that one or more users have created stubs at each location in the past 48 hours. However, that is no reason to disregard the fact that when these articles are developed it will become a useful navigation tool. Happy‑melon 21:43, 4 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 to keep all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes in which a good 4/5 of the links are red, and most of the people named are listed in the articles anyway. RichardΩ6 12 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep 1. Red links aren't evil, there are enough extant articles to justify linking them and providing the red links. 2. People listed in the articles - I presume you mean main team article, which is where the list is cited? This is in line with all sports team nav boxes (football/soccer, AFL, rugby etc) so I don't see the relevance of this argument. The people are seldom listed in the articles where the templates are used. Severo^TC 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I think we should keep it. Also everyone start hailing me as king. The Last Saxon (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:JUSTAVOTE. And please try and ease off the silliness a little. Happy‑melon 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - creator appears to be active in the subject and there is every reason to suspect the template will become a useful navigation tool. Happy‑melon 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Happy-melon. This is clearly a work in progress; give the creator some time. - 52 Pickup (talk) 20:27, 8 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!) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Project banner of an inactive WikiProject.It doesn't appear to have ever been used. --Farix (Talk) 13:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete neglected banner. Doczilla (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Its about crappy Naruto shit. The Last Saxon (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remain civil, please. Happy‑melon 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not liking something is not a valid deletion reason. ><RichardΩ6 12 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom...isn't being used, out it goes. Collectonian (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Template isn't used and the project/tast force seems to be inactive, and with its parent project taking ownership of the relevant articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-used and unlikely to be used. SkierRMH (talk) 22:49, 5 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 Snowball delete. Acalamari 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate - only world cup templates are allowed, for national teams. Been through this twenty times before. — Punkmorten (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football consensus is crystal-clear on this issue. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete I think this should be keeped but due to current policy on these types of templates it must be keeped The Last Saxon (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per well-established project guidelines. Neier (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom BanRay 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Precedent is compelling. Happy‑melon 21:53, 4 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 -- jj137 ^♠ 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, very few of the items listed are emotions at all. Many of them are attitudes, actions or personality attributes. The only actual emotions listed are ecstasy (which is debatable) and happiness. Secondly, the positivity or otherwise of emotions is a matter of an individual's point of view. There are situations in which any emotion can be inappropriate or negative. Thirdly, most of the items in the template are either redirects or links to related items (for example, there is a difference between peacefulness and peace, and hopefulness and hope, yet the template links to the latter in both cases), which actually makes it misleading as a navigation template.. Waggers (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete subjective template. POV problems. Doczilla (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom JadziaLover (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. As above, very subjective. ><RichardΩ6 12 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment We could just have the fruit of the Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance. Those are citable to Galatians 5:22-23. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to a fruit of the Spirit template, but those aren't emotions. This discussion is about the positive emotions template. Waggers (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. per norm The Last Saxon (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Too subjective. Happy‑melon 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom - too vague & no clear inclusion criteria . SkierRMH (talk) 22:48, 5 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. Recreate in a smaller form if desired, source material for new template will be provided on request. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete subjectively defined template ("Films by Christopher Guest and his frequent co-stars"). For an actor template, this is a mess. For a director template, it's just wrong because he didn't direct every one of those movies and the article lacks objective inclusion criteria for "frequent co-stars". — Doczilla (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The part about 'frequent co-stars' is very subjective, how does one define 'frequent'? ><RichardΩ6 12 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete "Films by" Christopher Guest inexplicably includes films he directed, wrote, co-wrote, or starred in. Defining his troupe via template seems ill-advised; the Guest troupe probably has enough independent coverage to be an appropriate subject for an article a la Rat pack or others in Category:Entertainment cliques. Maralia (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but attack with a poleaxe until it restricts itself to an objective inclusion criterion (ie, films directed or wrote by him). Happy‑melon 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless the scope is narrowed & has clear inclusion criteria. SkierRMH (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but modify. It needs to be just "films directed by Christopher Guest" or "films written by Christopher Guest". Chip Unicorn (talk) 20:40, 9 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!) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete template that is redundant to article Hugh Grant filmography. Grant is not the only actor in these films. The films are not logically connected as any sort of series. — Doczilla (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete single-use/redundant. –Pomte 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as unusable except on Hugh Grant. Happy‑melon 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as useless navigational template (single use only). SkierRMH (talk) 22:45, 5 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!) 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to Warren_Beatty_filmography per arguments in Template:Clint Eastwood Films and Template:Bale nominations below. — Doczilla (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Each film does not fall within scope to create navigational value in linking to this specific series of film articles. –Pomte 08:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no utility as a navigational template, collection should be done with categories if at all. Happy‑melon 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk)

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!) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete impractical template that is not useful for navigational purposes (and also happens to be incorrectly capitalized). The films are already linked through the Clint Eastwood article. Eastwood did not have first billing on every single one of those films. Should we crowd the Absolute Power (film) article (which isn't even correctly linked by the template) with templates for Clint Eastwood, Ed Harris, Gene Hackman, E. G. Marshall, Laura Linney, and Scott Glenn? No, that serves no purpose whatsoever. — Doczilla (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete poor scope and inferior to {{Clint Eastwood}}, which, as a director template, is a much more defining characteristic for each film. –Pomte 07:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Template:Clint Eastwood. This saves confusion and/or a duplicate being created. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete "involving" him? That's just a bit too broad for a useful template. SkierRMH (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no utility except in Clint Eastwood. Happy‑melon 21:58, 4 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!) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete impractical template that is not useful for navigation purposes. The list of films in Christian Bale's article already links the film. Having a template for each "star" is pointless. It's not like he got first billing on every single one of those movies. Should The Prestige be crowded with templates for Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, David Bowie, Christopher Nolan, and Jonathan Nolan? No. — Doczilla (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete redundant to Christian Bale#Filmography and cannot be transcluded in any film articles. –Pomte 07:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, template fail. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and general uselessness. ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no utility as a navigational template. Happy‑melon 21:59, 4 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 Snowball delete. Acalamari 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated and replaced by {{Infobox Ship Example}}. — Maralia (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete deprecated/unused. –Pomte 07:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant and unused. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MJCdetroit (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as deprecated. Happy‑melon 21:59, 4 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, redundant. jj137 ^♠ 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

All the links in this navbox also appear in {{Mario sports games}}, which is a more detailed navbox that can replace this one. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete redundant. It would be improper scope to split this from {{Mario sports games}}, which isn't big. –Pomte 07:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete redundant. Doczilla (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment All the wikilinks in Template:Mario Kart series repeat in Template:Mario sports games. The only purpose I could see this having is showing which games are Console, Portable, and Arcade at a glance. Taric25 (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. As above, redundant, further template-cruft. ><RichardΩ6 12 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - redundant. Happy‑melon 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment why wasn't {{tfd}} appended onto the template until, like, today? Srsly, people. Last time Locke Cole and I led the charge to keep this, arguing that the sports template was way too bulky...now it's been four (4!) ourt of seven days into the discussion. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:43, 6 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 2

[edit] Template:Censored

[edit] Template:Notasocialnetwork

[edit] Template:Stephen Wong's Profile

[edit] Template:User:Wolfdog1/Krypto the Superdog

[edit] Template:Young Frankenstein Scenes

[edit] Template:Townships of Mandalay Division

[edit] Template:LPR Brakes

[edit] Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/Naruto

[edit] Template:Ethiopia Squad 1962 Africa Cup

[edit] Template:Positive emotions footer

[edit] Template:Christopher Guest

[edit] Template:Hugh Grant filmography

[edit] Template:Warren Beatty Films

[edit] Template:Clint Eastwood Films

[edit] Template:Bale

[edit] Template:Naval ship

[edit] Template:Mario Kart series

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search