Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 23

< May 22	May 24 >

May 23

Template:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake casualties

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 Subst and delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is only used on one article — Balloonguy 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete
Subst and delete - one article, and one user page. The template uses external links for references, while the rest of the article uses inline <ref></ref> tags, presumably solely for technical reasons (ref tags don't work with included templates). Ideally, once the template is subst'd the HTML links should be made into full references (with associated extra information about the sources). Mike Peel 06:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. — Gosgood 09:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a table instead. Jmlk 17 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete just have a table. Carlosguitar 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete it's just a table with data. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:25, 27 May 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:1stCathedralchurch

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. — Balloonguy 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Delete - unused. Mike Peel 06:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused. —dima /talk/ 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uhm...I think it's been said before but hey: UNUSED. Jmlk 17 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, id. supra. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:29, 27 May 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:Euro

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

€ now has wide support in standard fonts, and so this template is no longer used and is not necessary. € also works. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No transclusions means that nobody is finding it useful anymore and "&euro" works so it is now useless. GDonato (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be still used quite often as subst. While € € has been available from the beginning of times, still some might be using it... or might be not. But just in case they are - my vote is keep. --Kirils 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My keyboard can't type the euro symbol, and I'm sure many others in America have the same situation. Also, this template would be substed, so lack of transclusions isn't necessarily lack of use. -Amarkov moo! 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that even though your keyboard can't type the symbol, you can type € and it does the same thing? You could even just copy and paste the character from another article. I doubt anyone is using the template anymore because of copy-and-paste. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copypasting symbols is really rather annoying to me. And yes, I realize that the HTML code produces the same result, but I prefer to have things in unicode. -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd rather type {{subst:euro}} than €? What would you have done if you had never noticed this template? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the symbol is on the insert bar (the one with wiki markup and symbols) below the page edit box ("Symbols" row, about 3/4 of the way along the row) for those that don't have the button on their keyboard. On Mac keyboards, it can by typed by holding down alt and shift and pressing 2. On UK windows computers, it can be done by typing AltGr-4. On US keyboards, AltGr-5. If the keyboard doesn't have an AltGr key, then the right Alt key will suffice. See [1] for more info. Isn't that enough methods of typing it already? Mike Peel 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And on most X11-based systems (Unix/Linux/BSD), press the compose key and then "E=". (If you don't have the compose key, aka multikey, mapped, you should, though documenting that is a bit beyond the scope of this note.) Xtifr _tälk 22:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do not have multikey mapped, and furthermore the "insert bar" is not available to me, due to the lack of javascript. There are people who still need this. So why ignore them? Kirils 12:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scroll down on your Wikipedia edit screen and you see the markup and symbol insertion links. With Javascript running, clicking on the € symbol in the table will insert it into the edit box at the current cursor location. Slambo (Speak) 11:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful sometimes and doesn't do any harm. it just sits there until someone uses it. -N 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to edit tools; part of the "Symbols" line. Gracenotes^T § 12:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. It is just a symbol that could easily just be pasted in while editing instead. Jmlk 17 05:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary (although did have a past use). For those of us (including myself) who have no way of typing the euro other than Alt(left)-0-1-2-8 on the numeric keypad, the euro is clickable just below this window when editing Wikipedia - I see a row of symbols: "₯ € ₠" etc. Orderinchaos 08:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly. I don't have a numpad on my laptop and I doubt the alt-blabla thing would even work in linux, furthermore, users with javascript disabled (hey, that's me again!) due to security policies or some other reasons, can't use the fancy "Symbols" line. Kirils 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally have no objections to having this template in your userspace, if it helps. Gracenotes^T § 15:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this debate is only about the mainspace template. (Incidentally, didn't realise € also works - € €) Orderinchaos 02:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful workaround for users with disabled javascript and with crappy browsers. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I use an American keyboard without the euro sign. I believe I have a good knowledge of HTML and wiki markup and templates. But this TFD is how I found out about this template. Most people can use the toolbox. People w/o java script? Well, they can copy and paste from the toolbox. Too slow? If somebody really needs to type it fast, they will find Euro sign and Keyboarding the euro sign. There are so many alternative ways. € and Alt(numpad)-0-1-2-8 both require few number of key strokes than {{euro}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - better, alternative ways to enter the € sign when editing (like I just did there by pressing CTRL+ALT+4). It is also a unused orphaned template. --tgheretford (talk) 14:01, 27 May 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:ARTICLESPACE/

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, author request ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All unused, pretty old templates. I think that they were something to do with the long-deleted Template:ARTICLESPACE, and were subsequently orphaned rather than deleted with the main template. If that's not the case, then I have no idea what they were for. Mike Peel 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ARTICLESPACE/Portal and Template:ARTICLESPACE/Portal talk have been nominated for speedy deletion following a discussion with their creator [2]. Mike Peel 06:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're unconnected with at least the most recent deleted revision of {{ARTICLESPACE}}. I suspect they were meant to be used as {{ARTICLESPACE/{{NAMESPACE}}}}, which would actually work, and have a lower pre-expand include limit than simply {{ARTICLESPACE}}; however, as there are magic words for this sort of thing now, they aren't needed. --ais523 14:20, 24 May 2007 (U T C)
Delete as deprecated by magic words. –Pomte 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant to... MediaWiki itself. Magic words are useful for this sort of thing. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I am the creator of the templates. I am not active anymore so much nowadays, however, I distinctly remember someone already asking me if they were to be deleted (probably then only the main template was deleted and all the subtemplates remained by mistake). Yes, I suppose they are obsolete now. --Ggonnell 13:14, 27 May 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.

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 The result of the debate was redirect to {{Quote box}}. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quotebox

Template is very similar to {{Quote box}}, which is a protected and heavier used template. The template is currently being used in a handful of articles, but can easily be replaced substituted with {{Quote box}}. — Dream out loud 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Quote box}} as redundant and less flexible in terms of width and alignment. Replace all transclusions with something like {{Quote box|align=right|width=250px|quote=quote<ref>reference</ref>}}. –Pomte 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Quote box}} as redundant. Carlosguitar 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. {{Quote box|align=right|width=250px|quote=quote|source=source}} would be a better replacement line of code, where quote is the first parameter currently given to quotebox and source is the second. Mike Peel 06:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It uses a unique color not used in {{Quote box}}. ~ UBeR 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:DEW. We don't need to focus on the colours of templates.
Redirect to {{Quote box}} to get rid of the redundancy. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 19:59, 28 May 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:ZoidsProject

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject box for the defunct and deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoids. — -- saberwyn 10:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The deleted wikiproject MFD is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoids. The result of the debate was delete as inactive, and this template is only found on talk pages.
Delete as defunct. –Pomte 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless --Kirils 23:12, 23 May 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:Avery bridge.jpg

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 deleted, per CSD G6, as this is clearly an uncontroversial maintenance action. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only content is {{Image template notice|Avery_bridge.jpg}}. A template of a template is redundant. The template doesn't seem to be used by anything other than Image:Avery bridge.jpg, which was listed as CSD I2 since the image was missing and the description page was just the template. Strangerer (Talk) 07:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was single-use, now useless. –Pomte 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless --Kirils 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 00:42, 25 May 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.

Unused Userboxes in Template Space (User 0 THRU User 9

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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following subset have been added by After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

None of these userboxes in the template space are being used at all. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be for keeping the ones like {{User 3rd Engineer}} if they were getting used, so perhaps some could be userfied, but there's no point at all having a userbox on your userpage telling people how many userboxes you have. Particularly not in template space, so those should be deleted, really. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not even the users who created them have them on their user page. Most of these have been around for a while, and if they were going to be used, they would be used. If nothing else, they should be userfied.
Delete userbox counters (User 40, User 50, User 60, User 70, User 80, User 90). Also delete Template:User 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is unused. Userfy Template:User 20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:User 30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Template:User 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as they do have minimal usage. (Note: I am tagging these 4 additional templates and pointing them to this discussion.) --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the job-related ones, as people may use them as they get promoted (as I changed my Seaman userbox to PO3 when I got promoted). Neutral on the others. -N 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if anyone cares to, delete otherwise.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete userbox counters (they're somewhat silly), userfy others. Orderinchaos 02:20, 27 May 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:@gagov

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't seem worthwhile to have an external link template that's used in only two articles, and doesn't link to informative sites anyway. Subst and delete. --Quuxplusone 02:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant. Clyde (a.k.a Mystytopia) 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, subst will resolve. Carlosguitar 00:12, 24 May 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 South Park episode

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

episode specific version of {{Infobox Television episode}}. All uses replaced, time to delete. Jay32183 02:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - superseded by the more general template. Mike Peel 06:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another one of these ;) Gracenotes^T § 15:47, 26 May 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:Steve Gerber

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fancrufty, unwieldy, and non-notable to create a template for a lesser comics artist. Will Eisner, one of the most notable comic creators, doesn't have one, nor do any number of other major artists and writers. — ThuranX 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of templates for other artists of writers is a glaring hole that gets solved by adding templates, not deleting a "lesser" artist's template. Subject is notable, and the template serves a purpose. It perhaps needs to be better designed to be less unwieldy, but these are not grounds for deletion.--Cerejota 01:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I put a lot of work into this template, and as a writer cited by both Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman as a major influence, it simply does not fly to consider Gerber a "lesser artist", when frankly, he was putting out work at or above thier calendar long before they got attention for it. Also, the template is only a day old and needs more work before it can be judged as poorly done. I also agree with Cerejota that a lack of templates for others is not a reason to delete one for someone as worthy as Gerber. I used Template:Alan Moore as a model for Template:Steve Gerber. If there is something wrong with the Moore template, please let me know. --Scottandrewhutchins 11:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. This might be fancruft, but I don’t know. As for the other points of debate, you can’t judge this template by what other templates may or may not exist. Will Eisner’s may be on the way, but hasn’t been created yet. Because of the template’s size, I would suggest that the class (on the first line of the template) be changed from “autocollapse” to “collapsed.” The template may also need to be trimmed a bit to show only his most important/notable works. Jaksmata 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Concern was rised about this on the Comics Project and a consensus hasn't really been reached on whether this is a good or bad idea [3] I've done quite a bit of work on {{Alan Moore}} and there are big differences between the two. Firstly Alan Moore is constantly voted the #1 comic writer and so there is an arguement that is more notable and this carries over to his template. Equally if you compare and contrast the template with his Bibliography you can see that the template isn't comprehensive - that is a job for the bibliography. The Moore template on has his creations and those titles he did major work on (we are discussing removing a few items form the template at the moment as they are fairly minor). The Gerber template is comprehensive and is bloated beyond being useful or meaningful - imagein if everyone who drew/wrote a Superman issue added it to their template. It would have no meaning. So this is a weak keep on the grounds that this is cut right down to only major contributions. (Emperor 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've edited it down to major works. The only fill-in I kept was Metal Men, since that's gotten awards and citations and was recently noted by Grant Morrison as an all-time favorite. I hope that makes it worthy of retaining. Honesty, It think Moore is great, but there is a lot of tunnel vision involved in naming him the best, which is neither here nor there in terms of an encyclopedia. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is much improved but there are still concerns - he isn't even mentioned on the Mister Miracle page and only gets minor mentions (amongst many others) on The Phantom Zone, Weird War Tales Daredevil entries and I haven't been through and checked them. I mean if everyone who got a mention on the Daredevil page added it to their template and then added the template to the page (as this one is) then there would be some very serious problems. You are really going to have to take it back further to things he created or worked on in some major way as it is still lookin flabby. No need to keep discussing this here - I'll follow up on the talk page once the decision has gone through. (Emperor 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Gerber's run on Daredevil ran from #97-#117, and set the course of events that removed the Black Widow from the title, as well as introducing Angar the Screamer, Silver Samurai, and Death-Stalker (who was only later revealed to be an earlier Stan Lee villain.--Scottandrewhutchins 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is a character who has been going for 40+ years and his run was a bit over a year and a half. If he'd made a major contribution to the character/story it would be discussed on the entry - as an example of what I mean compare the mention of Gerber on Daredevil with the mention of Moore on Swamp Thing. (Emperor 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Even after the template was edited to "major works", for many of the works listed in the template (Doctor Fate, Phantom Zone for example), Gerber's contribution is negligible. For some others (Superman: The Animated Series), Gerber isn't even mentioned in the referenced article. While Gerber may have had considerable influence across the board, I feel it is too broad to be covered in this manner -- it should be referenced in appropriate articles and more fully in a "Bibliogrpahy" style on his own article. (The volume of work put into the template is not a valid point for consideration.) HalJor 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Fate is Gerber's current project, and The Phantom Zone limited series won several awards and is considered among his best work, and has been cited by several major comics bloggers as one to seek out and requests for a trade paperback (skeptical, of course, being pre-Crisis). --Scottandrewhutchins 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "current" Doctor Fate project is on hold, so its significance is highly debatable. There are no references of any awards for the Phantom Zone limited series on that article nor in the Gerber article (which only says "several", and no specific works). "Considered among his best work" is POV unless you can cite unbiased references for it, and the fact that it hasn't been released as TPB (or even referenced as a significant story in Superman continuity before or after Crisis) doesn't help your argument. HalJor 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Strong Cleanup I'm of two minds about this as I can see the precedent leading to some extremely fancrufty templates, but I'm saying keep primarily because a) navboxes on their own are essentially good tools for wikipedia, doing the simple and useful job of letting first time readers of a subject link to related articles from one spot and b) while I am indeed concerned about someday running across the super-fantastic-ultimate Rob Liefeld template, I can't in good conscience vote to delete a template because of something that might or might not happen. Gerber's influence on the 70s and 80s in comics is extremely clear (and extremely significant particularly during the 70s). All of that said - this template needs strong cleanup. Red links do not belong here (period) and there is a large amount of unattractive white space. I would strongly suggest limiting the links to characters or titles that Gerber himself created, as presumably his main article would mention ongoing comics that he effected (e.g. Daredevil, Superman, Iron Man, Defenders, etc). Shrink this down to the significant bare essentials of his contributions to the medium please. -Markeer 20:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see this as only bad precedent. A first-time reader in this subject is highly unlikely to encounter the cleaned-up template for Steve Gerber, and if they were truly interested in his work, his article is the place to find an extensive list, including references to why he was so influential. Without that knowledge, the template will appear to be merely a collection of links. And when brought to "bare essentials", I'll be surprised if there is enough left to justify a meaningful template. HalJor 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is the opposition to the template that sounds fancrufty. The only good argument is that it needs some sort of clean-up, which doesn't warrant TfD but a cleanup. If your other dear artists don't have a template, then be bold and build one for them. I do think all you crufts might be better served if you built a generic template into which info was put, in the normal style of infoboxes...--Cerejota 12:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we really want a template for every writer/artist that someone holds "dear"? If someone has to pass a notability test to get their own article, there should be similar criteria for someone to get their own template (and what's in it) before every comic-related article in WP is cluttered with more templates than text. Take a look at Nevada -- the template is currently longer than the article itself. Now imagine if there were also templates for the other creators: Phil Winslade, Steve Leialoha and Dick Giordano. Imagine, further, what the article for Superman would look like, given everyone from Neal Adams to Walt Simonson did at least something with the character in his (almost) 70-year history, and each one of those is someone's favorite. I still say delete this one, and let someone truly deserving (say, Alan Moore) start laying the groundwork for what a template should be and how it's used before we (re)create this one. HalJor 17:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE - Steve Gerber is an article in wikipedia since 23:30, 28 July 2004. No AfD has happened to my knowledge. The page is complete, relatively well written, and even has a photo of the subject. This means the community consensus is that the subject is notable, and it has bene this way for a long time.

If your ever-shifting criteria for this TfD includes notability, then {{Steve Gerber}} meets notability. --Cerejota 08:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see this Steve Gerber template at the bottom of Defenders. While I agree that he is the most remarkable writer of that series, I wouldn't put a template on a series that he did not create. Just make sure his name appear in the article. I believe there is enough interest in Gerber's work that people try to track it down. --Leocomix 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then should Alan Moore's template be removed from Swamp Thing, or is his contribution to it more significant to it than Gerber's to Defenders? Also, should Gerber's template be on Man-Thing? Gerber didn't create Man-Thing, but he wrote over forty Man-Thing stories beginning with Man-Thing's fifth appearance. --Scottandrewhutchins

They aren't really comparable. Swamp Thing notes the important of his contribution "The series was continued by a number of writers, notably Alan Moore, whose reinvention of the character was particularly influential." and then follows up with a large section explaining it. (Emperor 19:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete If the reader wishes to know more about Steve Gerber, he can click on Steve's exact article. I don't see the relevance of this template. Lots42 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator It seems many people are interpreting my 'Other bigger names don't have it' as both WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and also by responding with 'So make one for them too'. My point, instead, was that creators as notable as Lee, Kirby and Eisner, who I think everyone in this discuss agrees are bigger than Gerber, do NOT have templates, for a number of reasons, including breadth of work, questionable definitions of merit for inclusion, and the general feeling that their articles do superb jobs of detailing their numerous works, as do the numerous links to their pages from the pages of their works, collaborators, characters, etc., etc. If such titans of the industry lack templates, I suspect it's not out of neglect but recognition that a GA, A or FA class article, plus careful yet widespread crosslinking, does far more for the subject and the reader. It's not that I think many, most, or all comics creators should have templates, but that few if any truly merit such. ThuranX 20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you just ignored WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, in spirit and in word!!! (Second time today I see someone disclaim their violation of a policy/guideline/essay when in fact they ignored the policy/guideline/essay in their comment!)

Your comments are an editing dispute to be resolved in the talk page of the template, and maybe in the WikiProject Comics talk page. A TfD is both premature and bureaucratic. BTW, fancrufty language like "creators as notable as Lee, Kirby and Eisner, who I think everyone in this discuss agrees are bigger than Gerber" or "titans of the industry" won't gain you any support. You out of WP:CMC land now, and do not assume we all have the expert knowledge of comics you have. We do have expert knowledge of what makes good or bad content.

Again, the solution probably lies in creating a generic infobox template, so that other artists of the industry can have their own box. Be creative, be bold and add notable stuff, not remove it!--Cerejota 08:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, I'm not violating the policy. By stating that other candidates for such treatment have instead simply had great articles written, I'm saying the same solution should be applied here. If you think that violates policy, take your head out of your ass. as for your trolling attacks: I'm not in "WP:CMC land". I'm not asking anyone to assume I have 'expert knowledge', and I'm not being 'fancrufty' by recognizing the two guys who started the silver age, or the guy who invented the graphic novel format as being major forces int he field. It's like saying Louis Pasteur was an innovator in medicine, Or Galileo and Copernicus were leaders in revolutionary thinking about the cosmos. It's not fancruft if it's so easily supportable. I don't know who you are, but this trolling attitude's not going to help anyone. ThuranX 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I do not think you are violating any policy. However, you cited an essay and then went against it.

2) I cannot possibly imagine anything more fancrufty than to compare some comic artists, however legendary they are in their field, with Galileo, Copernicus, and Louis Pasteur!. I mean, you and I both live in a world where the earth is not considered flat, and have live expectancies pushing 80, because of those guys. That you try to analogize their world-historical significance with the contributions of artists of a relatively small and recent form of art and entertainment only serves to further expose the fancruftiness that motivates this TfD.

Bottom line: if you do not like that your guys don't have their own cute template, just go ahead be bold and make templates for them. Otherwise, let other well meaning editors continue to enrich the encyclopedia by generating compelling content even for niche areas of knowledge.--Cerejota 08:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but remove all links to works of which Steve Gerber is not the main author. Gracenotes^T § 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI I have removed all red links from the template (on the theory that it's paradoxical for a navigation box to navigate to nowhere) and removed the template from the articles Daredevil, Defenders and Phantom Zone as those three at least were articles that seemed much too broad to focus on only one creator. Possibly I'm being premature as this is the middle of an AfD but as consensus appears to be at least leading to a "no consensus" (if not "keep"), I wanted to clean up a bit of content on articles in the main namespace. -Markeer 16:44, 28 May 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.