Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 23

< October 22	October 24 >

October 23

Template:Noteworthy Amusement Parks

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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is growing much to large to be useful. Furthermore, there is no criteria as to what constitutes a 'Noteworthy' amusement park. I posted a message on the template's talk page on 10/5 trying to promote discussion and suggesting that perhaps this should be deleted -- nobody replied. There are categories that fulfill the intended purpose of this template.Rehcsif 05:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Template is attempting to duplicate Category:Amusement parks for whatever reason. EVula 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I raised the issue of what defined "noteworthy" back in April but got not response. Hbdragon88 06:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary. Punkmorten 20:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- NORTH ^talk 20:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As navigation templates go, this one is fairly well-designed and compact, considering the number of parks that it contains. It duplicates categorical information? Fine, but so what? It also improves navigation of wikipedia for very little cost. I think we need to have the "what makes a noteworthy amusement park" discussion first and then decide if we still need the template if we determine that the potential pool of noteworthy amusement parks is too large (which I doubt). Irongargoyle 00:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But the articles in the template aren't actually related, except for the fact that they're all of the same "type". It doesn't particularly improve navigation. Take a look at Walt Disney World Resort; it has four templates on them. The other three all contain related items (such as all the rollercoasters at Disney World), whereas {{Noteworthy Amusement Parks}} ties Disney World in with largely unrelated articles. Such a weak thread between articles is best connected via the use of the category namespace, not a template. EVula 00:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Your choices of what makes a "type" and what is "related" are completely arbitrary. I personally think that a well-designed nav template is always good to have considering reasonable space limits (e.g. no templates with hundreds of links). There are 40-some links on here, but that is by no means unwieldly. Nav templates are good because they allow seamless navigation between pages without readers having to journey to the category namespace. I also feel as though they improve the look of wikipedia pages if done well. Yes, it duplicates information, but it isn't broke (huge in size) yet, so why fix (delete) it before it becomes a problem? Irongargoyle 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When I first encountered this template, it was relatively compact. In the last few months more and more parks keep getting added to it. It's that trend that caused me to bring it to TFD -- AFTER attempting for several weeks to get discussion going on how to improve it at the article's talk page. If you have suggestions for improving it, let's hear them, but we can't have a template where someone adds their favorite park every week and it get's bloated to the full amusement park category space... --Rehcsif 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree that some inclusionary criteria would be helpful. Would the closing admin be so kind as to userfy this for me with no prejudice against re-creation if I can gather some consensus in an appropriate location concerning what makes an amusement park notable for inclusion on this template? I suppose I could always undelete it myself and userfy it, but I would like to keep the edit history and I don't want to be seen as abusing my tools since this was a discussion I was involved in (and it certainly doesn't look like this is being kept). Thanks, Irongargoyle 03:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary selection of amusement parks. Tim! 12:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's arbitrary and already too big, it would have to be much bigger to not be arbitrary. Dusso Janladde 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Template:Car sharing

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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unnecessary. Each article related to carsharing does not need to contain the whole contents of Category:Car sharing, and List of carsharing operators. I nominate for deletion. Cacophony 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Horrible use of the template namespace. However, I'd like to point out that you didn't edit the template to include the TfD notice. I added it to give people a heads up about this. EVula 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That thing is friggin' ludicrous. -- Kicking222 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Template:AFC Wimbledon Squad

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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squad template for a team that, at present, does not have any players that have played at a professional level. This means they shouldn't have articles and thus there is no need for this template. HornetMike 20:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you list the players in question (those who have never played professionally) at AFD? Thanks, Punkmorten 20:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Waaaaaaaaaay ahead of you! ;) HornetMike 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Barnes (footballer)) Some of these players have played pro-football (namely Josh Lennie, Byron Bubb, Scott Curley, plus arguably more), thus they should (and do) have articles and thus there is a need for this template. -- MLD · T · C · @: 15:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: further players included in this template also with professional league experience include Luke Garrard and Lewis Cook -- MLD · T · C · @: 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a single club at level 7 in the English League system to have a squad template. A few of the individuals meet notability criteria, but this template seems way over the top. Just include a squad list in the AFC Wimbledon article. - fchd 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness to me, you hadn't created Cook and Garrard when I nominated this. Still, I still endorse my decision to nominate it. As fchd says, so few players having a page makes this template pointless. HornetMike 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, I hadn't created Cook and Garrard's pages at the time as I had (incorrectly) concentrated on other players who hadn't had league experience (was unaware of the wp:bio criteria on footballers at the time). Actually, quite a few of AFC Wimbledon's players have professional league experience so I am now focussing my efforts solely on these (see latest edition Wes Daly, ex-QPR and Raith Rovers). Currently 8 players have articles. So if, as you say, the issue is that there are not enough articles to justify a squad template what is the minimum number of articles which does justify a squad template???!!! -- MLD · T · C · @: 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although AFC Wimbledon are a notable club among unnotables, that infamy does not extend to theri current squad Superlinus 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Superlinus, please see Articles for deletion debate re Paul Barnes (footballer) for confirmation that a number (though not all) of AFC Wimbledon's players are regarded as notable, which is my justification for a separate template to link these players together. -- MLD · T · C · @: 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.