Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 11

< April 10	April 12 >

April 11

Template:Infobox PATH station

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 speedy delete, per WP:CSD #G7. --Aude (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ORPHANED – All PATH station articles use {{Infobox Station}}, making this one (and the one below) unnecessary. — Crashintome4196 20:18, 11 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox PATH

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 speedy delete, per WP:CSD #G7. --Aude (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ORPHANED – All PATH station articles use {{Infobox Station}}, making this one (and the one above) unnecessary. — Crashintome4196 20:18, 11 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:DeletedLost

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! 06:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. More to the point, do we really need a {{deletedpage}} specifically for future Lost episodes? I'm guessing no – Gurch 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely redundant and sets a horrible precedent. Can you imagine if we tried to do this for every popular television show/movie series/video game series/comic book/whatever? Then we could get into lengthy arguments about whether a future Dr. Who special, which isn't really a regular episode, should have Template:DeletedBBCSpecial or Template:DeletedDrWho.... :) Xtifr _tälk 21:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can think of a reasonable argument to have a general future event {{deletedpage}}. There is none for having one which is Lost specific. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant with deletedpage. use votepage= param to link to the AfD/MfD case (or precedent case) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. We do not need this. Acalamari 18:16, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Biography semi-protection

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! 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and we have quite enough protection templates in use as it is without starting to use more – Gurch 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not sure about this one. WP:BLP is a separate policy. I can understand trying to keep the number of protection templates to a reasonable minimum, but I'm not completely sure this is the place to start. Seems like it might be better to merge of of the namespace-specific templates via parser functions. But I don't feel strongly enough to try to stop this deletion. Xtifr _tälk 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The templates aren't done by namespace, they're done by reason for protection. The only namespace-specific templates are "high risk template" one and "user talk page of a blocked user who won't stop messing with their talk page". These are distinct reasons for protection, and the fact that they're namespace specific is only coincidental – we don't have separate templates for vandalism in different namespaces, just a vandalism one. "Failure to conform to the standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" is not a reason for protection, it's a reason to improve the article. I perhaps wouldn't be objecting if the template was actually used, but the fact that it isn't suggests that nobody has found the need to protect a page for such reasons, or everyone has found the existing templates to be sufficient – Gurch 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, right you are, sorry. Guess I skimmed the cat too quickly. Xtifr _tälk 13:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This template, as it is worded, is wrong. It is not semi-protected because it fails WP:BLP, it's semi-protected because people keep adding information which fails it. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - arguments above explain this well. Gracenotes ^T § 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused template based on false premise (per Amarkov) and inappropriate attempt to combine a cleanup template with an protection template. Redundant to standard protection templates and {{blpdispute}}. Xtifr _tälk 13:49, 15 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:PhilPresgallery

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. feydey 12:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of unfree images. Violates WP:FUC #9. — Abu badali ^(talk) 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; in addition to the reason the nominator has provided, this template disregards the "use" aspect of "fair use", not to mention the "fair" aspect as well. Gracenotes ^T § 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst: and Delete: subst into the article and delete the template. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:49, 12 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Bangalore-astrological-breakthrough

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! 06:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, pointless template, does not qualify for speedy deletion. — Dylan Lake 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this really doesn't need a discussion. -Amarkov moo! 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: i don't see why this cannot be speedied. seems like a totally useless template. could be marked as test or housekeeping as far as i'm concerned. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per TheDJ. - Nick C 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete useless template. Acalamari 18:18, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Matthew McConaughey

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 all, except those stricken. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really bad idea for a nav template. Use the actor's article for this kind of thing. The clutter templates like this could cause would be insane. — Ned Scott 06:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominating the following templates for the same reason: Template:Jim Carrey, Template:Leonardo DiCaprio, Template:Kate Winslet, Template:Mel Gibson filmography, ~~Template:Jodie Foster~~, ~~Template:David Fincher~~, Template:Richard Gere, Template:Julia Roberts, Template:Adam Sandler, Template:John Turturro -- Ned Scott 06:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I also believe there should be a final decision about the issue beyond this TfD. If these templates were strictly limited to the actor's article, I wouldn't mind them, but then there is no need to create a template for one article only. However they have started being included in films, where we already have a very serious problem with too many (footer) templates. I must admit that some of the footer templates in use are by far more irrelevant, and they are already being debated. However the actor ones can get wildly out of hand and very easily so, as there are many films where many important actors play and each could get a filmography template. We do permit director filmographies, as it is very rare to have more than one director. In "segment" films with several directors, their filmography templates are unacceptable. Hoverfish Talk 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This happened before several months back and the decision was to delete the templates for adding clutter to the bottom of the articles. I think the accepted rule was only directors could have templates on all of the films they directed. The problem could be that if any big name movie with multiple big name actors in it, could result in half a dozen or more templates at the bottom of the page (ex. Ocean's Eleven or Lord of the Rings). Side note another one of these templates is the one found on Pierce Brosnan's article. --Nehrams2020 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except for Template:David Fincher, which is about a director and not actor. No need for this template clutter in film articles, when actors' filmographies can be browsed through their biography articles. Prolog 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, my bad. I'm still not wild about the idea even for a director, but it would probably be better to just keep this TfD about the actor templates. I've struck out Template:David Fincher in my nomination. --- Ned Scott 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What about the rest of Category:Film actor templates? All except Charlie Chaplin (being also the director), and I would say Abbott and Costello and the 3 Stooges which are basically series rather than actor templates. Also many of the actor templates have a misleading header "Films by". Should we start another TfD? Hoverfish Talk 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. There are a number of others that are about directors. {{Jiang Wen}} mixes acting and directing. {{Laurence Olivier}} mixes acting and producing. {{Harry Connick, Jr.}} mixes discography and filmography. I noticed these as I was starting a new TFD. I stopped (and am now trying to clarify my position) when I read this sentence at Template talk:Audrey Hepburn: This template must not be deleted because individual categories for actors are not allowed, either. We must have one or the other!. -- Black Falcon 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but there is the option of listifying. Even if we list within the actor's article, that wouldn't be much different from having the template in the actor's article (but would discourage putting a nav template on each movie page). Hoverfish has pointed me to efforts being started on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List and navigation management, which might be where we want to handle this issue further. I'm sure the creators of these templates only wish to help aid article navigation, but the real solution is to be able to guide their efforts before we get masses of these templates created. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't really disagree. I don't want to see dozens of (or even one or two) actor-filmography templates on every article about a film. I think a separate filmography section in each actor-bio article (as here) suffices. In fact, I've convinced myself: I'll start a separate nomination for the other templates shortly (of course, I'd rather we include them here, but am uncertain about the appropriateness of expanding the scope of this discussion 18 hours after its creation and after 3 users have already commented on it). -- Black Falcon 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Or, perhaps we should just add them to this TFD nomination? What do you think? -- Black Falcon 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm not sure about further inclusion here, as it may be objected. I also observed that many of the other templates have been used only in the actor's bio, which is not the main reason for this nomination. As for Jiang Wen, a template with his directorial work only could be created under directors' templates. But producing... (do we need producer templates?) Discography, cleared of films, can be moved to discography templates. Hoverfish Talk 06:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Template:David Fincher (already stricken from the nomination) per Prolog, Ned Scott, and my comments above. -- Black Falcon 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Hoverfish and others. gren グレン 05:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this is an attempt to get around the disallowed categorization per performance in a somewhat creative way. It's even worse at causing clutter that way, so it should go. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except for Template:David Fincher, which is about a director and not actor, per Prolog.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:23, 17 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:OSU taxobox

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! 06:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is an infobox designed solely for Oregon State University and currently not used in the OSU article. It is also redundant to the more general Template:Infobox University. Consensus has generally been against templates that can be used only in one article and for one entity. — Black Falcon 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Infobox University. — mholland (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single-used template. Gracenotes ^T § 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mholland and Gracenotes --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:54, 12 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Baltimore bus route

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 userfy and delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic, not useful, only used on one talk page, and used to by NE2 to make super generic redirect pages to super specific pages, where NOTHING links to the newly created redirect. 70.51.8.244 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links there only because you just changed incoming links. If you feel there is something else called (for instance) No. 40 Line, feel free to make a disambiguation page like No. 1 Line. --NE2 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change any links to the template. Only one talk page uses this template. 70.51.8.244 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You changed links to the redirects "where NOTHING links to the newly created redirect". The talk page is a completion list, a common thing to make sure proper redirects from alternate names are created: [1] --NE2 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: You two have been really going at it, judging from the edit histories. I'm kinda confused here because there is not enough background to this story listed here. Perhaps it's better to take this case to MfD and discuss all the Baltimore bus route edits, redirects, templates and what not in one go. (PS. my personal opinion is that all those articles are way to short and are better served by a "List of Baltimore bus routes", which also talks about the changes to them in history etc) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected all but the former streetcar lines and the one bus rapid transit route to List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area. The former streetcar lines can be greatly expanded by someone with access to local newspaper archives. --NE2 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for NE2. It is useful for a single talk page and doesn't need to be in templatespace, or can be substituted and then re-substituted if there is a need to update. Whether the links themselves should be redirects or not is irrelevant here. –Pomte 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (userfy). Same opinion as TheDJ. feydey 19:10, 19 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Japan related articles

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! 06:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, redundant with {{Japan topics}}. --Kusunose 01:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to {{Japan topics}}. —dima /talk/ 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{Japan topics}}. Although {{Japan related articles}} was created a month before {{Japan topics}}, we oughtn't prioritise seniority over usefulness, and I hold the latter to be better organised and formatted (and a shorter title is always a plus). -- Black Falcon 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why aren't "Japan related articles" in Japan related categories? Categories are for navigation. SchmuckyTheCat 03:18, 19 April 2007 (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 section.