Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 16

< December 15	December 17 >

December 16

Template:Jadransport

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!) 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template provides an external link to a website that is not currently active; all the articles that use this template link to the same blank, content-free placeholder page ([1]). — Muchness (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far I know it is not active several months. - Darwinek (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom -- hopefully a bot can remove usage in articles after the template is deleted. // laughing man 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless external link. laughing man: that is the procedure. –Pomte 08:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one external link. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 02:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.SkierRMH (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. _{Trance addict} 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Prevalis (talk) 20:51, 19 December 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:Ex-Shortland Street Navbox

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!) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to List of Shortland Street characters. Template is full of redlinks - approx. 10% of the links shown are to actual articles. — SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not nearly a majority of these characters are notable enough for their own articles. The content should be moved into the list. Any notable characters are placed in {{Shortland Street Navbox}}. –Pomte 08:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redlinked to death - replace as suggested by Pomte. SkierRMH (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pomte --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per red links, at the most listify. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:42, 20 December 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.

Romney & Giuliani nav templates

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 of side templates, no consensus for others. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Giuliani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rudy Giuliani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Romney and Template:Giuliani are redundant to Template:Mitt Romney and Template:Rudy Giuliani. The only difference between the templates is that one is meant to be a bottom navigation template and the other is a side navigation template. Both Template:Romney and Template:Giuliani were created today and added to articles related to the two people resulting in situations where both templates exist on the same page. I've contacted the creator of the two templates and suggested they update the existing templates, but they have continued to work on the templates and place them on articles. I'm not particularly attached to either navigation box format, but there isn't a reason to have two navigation boxes for the same person that do the same thing, just different locations. So, just to be clear, this is not a nomination to delete all four templates, but rather to delete one of each set. I'm leaving it up to this discussion to decide which set to delete. — Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular Wikipedia project is a public service to perhaps help folks in the coming months decide how to vote. But at all times Wikipedia should keep its readers and users in mind. Thus, when it comes to text, excess redundancy is bad, in order to ease readers' burden. But when it comes to navigation stuff, some measure of redundancy is good, to ease users' burden, while they try to figure out how to navigate among related pages. Justmeherenow (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Redundant, content already linked in main articles and back there from sub-articles. Mbisanz (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which set would you like to delete, or are you saying all four templates should be deleted. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought my plural "articles" was clear. I say all of them should go. Refactored to that effect. Mbisanz (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other candidates has the later mentioned templates, for sake of standardization Template:Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Giuliani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ought to be deleted and transfer information to the kept templates as needed. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the new side nav ones. Also, contrary to Justmeherenow, I do not believe a purpose or goal of Wikipedia is to be "a public service to perhaps help folks in the coming months decide how to vote." If you want that, join the League of Women Voters. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make heads nor tails of this non sequitor about Wikipedia's not being the place to disseminate balanced information to the masses. I respectfully submit that any who are not here for that but only to rabble rouse really belong somewhere else (though I suspect, gentle Wikipedian, my saying that won't convince you to split, unfortunately)... Justmeherenow (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete side-navs. Due to redundancy. The bottom ones can be put to good use. Jared (t) 17:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them both. Geez, I'm surprised at the votes so far, with there being no campaigning involved. Many articles have both a Wikiproject navigation sidebar and a horizontal navigation banner. If we delete here we'll need to go throughout Wikipedia and hamper its user friendliness wholesale (e/g at random I went to American Civil War and President of the United States which both have nav sidebars (the Civil War article, even a portal midside) along with horizontal nav banners at the bottom with so many, many Wikipedia articles that are members of a series doing the same. Oh, and as a note about the whole of Wikipedia, the issue of where to put "See also" section links has already been settled in favor of just above references rather than requiring users to scroll endlessly just to click to the next article of a series. Therefore portals and the horizontal navigation banners really ought to be resituated to "See also" sections. Where should I bring this issue up?) Justmeherenow (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justmeherenow, the problem with having two navbars that do the exact same thing is situations like this [2]. Is it really necessary to have two navbars that touch each other? Aside from the redundancy, it just looks silly. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like nothing but free advertising for these respective campaigns. They are not necessary for navigating three pages which are already linked to each other in the articles. Rtr10 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. You mean, let's delete all balanced Wikipedia articles having to do issues that are the subject of paid advertisements? Or we delete all Wikipedia nav boxes of only three links? Or just delete all nav boxes throughout Wikipedia? Justmeherenow (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These particular nav bars are redundant. There is no need for them, because every article is linked through each page. In my opinion it is nothing but an advertisement for these candidates, that is why I vote for deletion. Rtr10 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Barack Obama, which is besides the point. But it so happens that the Template:Barack Obama nav bar links to, let's see......Barack's and his wife's bio, his two books, two pieces of legislation he co-authored, his campaign, his poltical positions, and an article about an anti-Obama whisper campaign--just as the Template:Rudy Giuliani navbar links to his two former wives' and his current wife' bios, Kerik's appointment, the controversial lifelong friend that's a priest, his book, his mayoralty, his current campaign, blah blah. Both are advertising? Well, if you truly believe such a critique is justified, [sighs] well.....I guess I'll assume you all are constructively editing in good faith (while I mutter to myself arrrrrrrghhhhhh! lol) Justmeherenow (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete side navs and keep the bottom navs. There are enough articles to warrant a template for each regardless of what you think readers use them for. I suggest though that the templates be removed from articles that do not fall within scope, namely the articles of family members and spouses. It doesn't make much navigational sense to link to each candidate's articles from those articles, and it may even suggest negative things about their notability (it implies they are notable just for being associated with Romney or Giuliani, which may or may not be the case). –Pomte 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete side templates and keep the bottom templates. Looking at the articles of some other Presidential candidates, they use the bottom-template rather than side-template style ({{Hillary Rodham Clinton}}, {{Barack Obama}}, {{John Edwards}}), so we should stick to that consensus rather than trying to create a new standard. Terraxos (talk) 04:36, 19 December 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.