Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 15

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 subst and delete. In addition to the consensus here, depth chart template have a long history of being deleted at TfD. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:2007-08 Boston Celtics depth chart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't see any need for such a template. This template is transcluded in the Boston Celtics article, but it's very hard for the new Wikipedians to find this template in order to edit. It's always unstable since it requires edits after each Boston Celtics game. Lastly, there is no hard proof that this information is correct and it's non-neutral, as well. — Crzycheetah 21:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Many other team articles have a depth chart, as well, and it is easy to understand who is having which role on the team. It also doesn't need to be edited after each game. ● 8~Hype ^@ 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not picking on the Boston Celtics if this template gets deleted, then I'll nominate all others. Basketball is such a game that players play different positions at different games, so their roles change game by game and templates like this have to update that. Plus, showing players' roles like this is very subjective, one fan may think that Player A is a bench player while another fan may think that Player A is a reserve player.--Crzycheetah 07:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am basing the chart on playing time, but you can also have a look at 82games.com to know which player plays which position. So it isn't that subjective. ● 8~Hype ^@ 15:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I really fail to see the use of this template. It is transcluded to two articles: Boston Celtics, where it is essentially redundant to the roster also posted on that article, and 2007-08 Boston Celtics season, where it can only show the depth chart at one moment in time, and not reflect changes throughout the season, therefore adds nothing. Resolute 05:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is constantly changed based on the last games. ● 8~Hype ^@ 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's the problem. Today, it tells us the depth chart from yesterday. Tomorrow it will tell us the chart from today. What does that add from a long term, historical perspective? Resolute 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily it shows the depth chart from the last game. It isn't like there is another depth chart every game. This chart can be used for a stretch of 5 games without changes. It is also based not on the last game, but rather the season to date. Even ESPN has a depth chart (which is wrong, though). ● 8~Hype ^@ 06:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not clear to me why basketball teams need to have depth charts in this particular style. The template is in a table format which some users may find difficult to edit. However, the number of players on each team is small enough that the information could be conveyed in a plaintext list instead without difficulty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This chart can be used for a stretch of 5 games without changes and is based not on the last game, but rather the season to date. Even ESPN has a depth chart. ● 8~Hype ^@ 06:24, 23 March 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:ENT Navigation (Season 1) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I nominate this template and the two below (Template:ENT Navigation (Season 2) and Template:ENT navigation) because I think they're redundant. The first two are redundant to the latter. And as the infobox in each episode article already links to the previous and next episode I think all of them can be deleted. — fschoenm (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I removed these templates as redundant from episodes that included the infobox. I reluctantly recommend keeping whichever templates are included on pages that lack the infobox. I think they're all clumped in season 3; season 1 and season 2 navboxes, if not transcluded as the sole way of moving between before/after episodes, can be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 16:20, 15 March 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:ENT Navigation (Season 2) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

See above. — fschoenm (talk) 16:08, 15 March 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:ENT navigation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

See above. — fschoenm (talk) 16:08, 15 March 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 Closed by nominator, didn't notice there was already one, though prob didn't have a "This template has been nominated for deletion" message ViperSnake151 15:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Template connected to rejected proposal.. ViperSnake151 15:02, 15 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Navigation Iceland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Superseded by standard Navbox. — Darwinek (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD T3 —Ms2ger (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'd like to nominate the clone {{Navigation Peru}} too. Also, see the tfd for a similar template. —Ms2ger (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe separate nomination would be better, to be sure it will be deleted. - Darwinek (talk) 10:30, 16 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Template not currently used, bitey, unprofessional for an article. No purpose. — MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I agree, it seems like a largely unprofessional and unhelpful "this article stinks" sort of template. Placement is highly subjective and I imagine it would do little besides inflaming editorial collaboration with unnecessary negativity. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete An unused template, which should not even be used because it will make readers laugh rather than help improve articles.--Crzycheetah 22:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Hilarious, snarky, but inappropriate and ultimately unlikely to be useful. - Dravecky (talk) 23:50, 16 March 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.