Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4

Template:Sealand

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(Говорить!) 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been superseded by Template:SealandNavigation.--Straightpress 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated and superseded as per nom.SkierRMH 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, snowball delete, totally redundant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as deprecated. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Deprecated template" is not a valid speedy criterion. But yeah ... delete. szyslak 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination, as this has been deprecated. Should a redirect be issued in its place? Yamaguchi先生 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not just move the new template to the old template page? —Scouter Sig 03:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant template. Doczilla 05:16, 7 November 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:PB-familiar

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(Говорить!) 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has the narrow purpose of flagging articles with terminology specific to paintball. I don't see why {{confusing}} or {{technical}} wouldn't work just as well. szyslak 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many topics have specific terminology, no need to have a template for each one. Rocket000 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. {{Technical}} should work just as well. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with author/creator's approval. Thank you for pointing me to the technical template. ~~Please allow me to replace the pb-familiar tags in all it's articles with technical before deletion. Thank you!~~ Done and done. Green light for deletion. RavenStorm 17:11, 12 November 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:How To

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 already speedy deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a place where this template could be used in an appropriate context. —- Prince Kassad 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't either, but it might be wise to keep it just in case a possible application should arise later. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm tagging this one as a test page speedy deletion. It was created by a SPA Samerali2 (talk · contribs) with one edit, this one. Appears to be a multiple cut & paste of an error message that was received when using Template:Notenglish. SkierRMH 05:21, 4 November 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:FACnumber

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(Говорить!) 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a sales catalogs. — Dreamwave444 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the user apparently created the account just to open this discussion. In adition, we're just discussing the number that certain release has on the label's catalogue, not its price --200.118.200.128 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nom is refering not to the price but the section which says Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. This is correct because A Certain Ratio, Crawling Chaos, Joy Division, The Happy Mondays plus the rest have nothing to do with each other, except they shared a now defunct record label. Operating 00:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the catalog article specifies that the catalog numbers are arbitrary, the previous / next links are bogus. It might make sense as an inline template, but that would require moving all the templates within the articles, so a simple re-purposing would require as much work as a full delete and recreate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the FAC number system is arbitary. It jumps between different artists and it jumps between CD and TV/VHS. It's in no way logical and the template is pointless. The impression i took after heavily editing a large number of Joy Division pages was that the creator of this template and indeed the FAC catalogue page has a conflict of interest WP:COI because its just not encyclopedic and looks like it was made and promoted by the owners of the Factory back catalogue. In addition this template breaks formatting when you use the web browser, Firefox, like i do, and i've had to add the broken template to some pages. Presumably that could be fixed but the template needs junking. Operating 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find it useful and enjoyable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.1.172 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 November 2007
Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT to me, which is not a reason to keep or delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can note the FAC in an article's body. Doesn't need a template. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Removed by vandalism 09:03, 4 November 20057. Now suggest speedy delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please. I liked it so much I created the Template:CREnumber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I think you underestimate how much affection some fans have for certain record labels. It was certainly very enjoyable for me to see many different album articles being linked up especially as some of them had not been identified as Creation records before. I simplified the CRE template so that it fitted more neatly into the albums template. I was intending to do the same for 4AD, but will now wait to see what the conclusion of this discussion is. In conclusion, the template is too fussy for my taste, but I do not object to it in principle. It is useful for people wanting to read through the articles connected to the label in a chronological order rather than alphabetical as in the label category. dyaimz 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below and check out this section on a Creation artist's page. As you can see there are many release numbers, so using only one (ok, two if you count the LP and CD) doesn't make much sense, and using them all is impractical. Rocket000 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as its use resembles marketing purposes, not an encyclopedic purpose. And Dyaimz, your argument isn't in support or in the spirit of Wikipedia. Your argument can't simply be that you like something to warrant or justify it being kept. By the same token, just because I dislike something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be here. I like this, but can't see it being suitable and appropriate on an encyclopedia. --linca linca 04:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles on albums or songs, do not deal with a specific release, as many have multiple releases (and thus multiple catalog numbers). It is common to have separate releases for different countries, re-releases, alternate versions, and even releases under different record companies. I disagree that these numbers are unencyclopedic, because they are widely used for identification purposes and is seen as valuable, especially by music enthusiasts, but this is not the way to include this information. (By the way, since when did usefulness become considered a violation of WP:ILIKEIT? Well, isn't an encyclopedia suppose to be useful? I mean that's kinda the whole point.) Rocket000 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{CREnumber}} is now also listed for deletion. Rocket000 20:01, 12 November 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.