Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19

Template:TVBMC

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been an enormous number of shows ever held by TVB, and hence an enormous number of MCs. What criteria shall we consider when we insert people into this box? The box lacks a strict definition. Besides, the box is far from completion. It is focusing on only some MCs of recent years. I can hardly see any uses and any encyclopedic value from this box. Even if kept, the information should be moved to an article, then more properly defined and re-organised. — supernorton 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- to be honest, there are only a few MCs who are used on a regular basis, and they tend to be veteran actors and actresses. It's not like any Tom, Dick, and Harry can be an MC for TVB. You need to have experience, and even then, few actors and actresses make it as an MC. However, we should develop a strict definition on who to put onto the template, and who not to put. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you know, almost all people that are on this template are referred as "golden MCs". And TfD is not the place to discuss which individual is supposed to be on the list and which is not. Let's see the criteria to apply for TfD.

The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). (This is what you're arguging about, and I just told you it's noteworthy)
The template is redundant to another better-designed template. (Doesn't look like we're arguing on this point)
The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks) (Nope, not applicable in this case)
The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement. (Is this template NPOV? I would say yes)

Bring this kind of discussion to template's talk page, not TfD. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:00, 24 February 2008 (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:The Apprentice (US) contestants

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(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is currently a list linking to failed contestants of a reality television series. If a template of navigation is needed for these contestants, it can easily be done in the Template:The Apprentice. Recommending the template to be deleted or its contents merged into The Apprentice template. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a need or purpose for this template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge its data with the other template. The contestants can easily be found on their season pages.Tam001 09:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no utility as a navigational template. Happy‑melon 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The candidates are important but they are not significant enough to have their name on the template.--Sli723 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are contestants in all kind of TV shows. No need for a template devoted to this one. PeterSymonds | talk 15:14, 23 February 2008 (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:Tea

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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic purpose, and conflicts with actual encyclopedic content similar to Template:Coffee. Conflict with Template:Teas is likely to do more harm than good. — Silly rabbit (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userify). Useless vanity template. The fact that it explicitly recommends substing rather than transclusion means there is no way to determine how widely used it is, and so it is fair to assume that its usage is fairly limited. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however, I'd be in favour of renaming this to "New tea" or another similar name. The only reasonable rationale I can see to delete would be the fact that this may cause confusion when the navbox template is at {{Teas}}. Spebi 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but if anybody really wants to keep it around, userfy it in that case to get it out of templatespace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to "cupoftea" or something like that to avoid confusion. Fosnez (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (not delete) Template meant to promote good faith. It's similar to {{smile}}, which was also userfied but kept as a redirect, presumably due to the lack of potential conflict with {{facial expressions}}. Substing isn't relevant, I don't really care to know exactly how many users have been offered tea. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep possibly rename. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid problems with the nav templates. I think anything that is useful for improving good faith in wiki should be kept--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename if necessary. It'll be a sad day around here when something that is purely positive and helps to make people happier gets deleted on the basis that's it's not "on mission". What next, delete all the barnstars? -- Hux (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2008 (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:Claymore (manga)

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(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and pointless template for a single article and its three related lists. They are already well connected and the template just takes up unnecessary space in the articles.. Collectonian (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no utility for a template to connect such a small set of articles. Happy‑melon 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - For future reference, how many related articles must exist before creating a customized navbox? Or does the number vary on a case by case basis?--Nohansen (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder that myself. I personally think that for so small a set, all of them WP:SS spinoff articles clearly marked in the main article, it's overkill and creates clutter. Delete —Quasirandom (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's still an article series, and the template doesn't take up much space. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Template takes up unnecessary space and the content can be easily added to Claymore (manga). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the happy fruit. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (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:Blunt

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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy useless template. — Veritas (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's like Template:Tea but more suitable for such über-hip, ultra-mod cultures as Wikipedia's. Or should we change it to "someone has passed you the bong"? I thought about that. It's kinda like saying, Okay, now it's your turn. Ron Duvall (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userify), along with Template:Tea. The fact that the template recommends substing rather than transclusion makes it impossible to assess how widely used either template is, so we should proceed under the assumption that neither template is used very widely at all. Template namespace is for templates that are likely to be widely used by a large number of editors, not for silly social networking gimmicks. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, including the "keep" recommendation. Yes, it's like Template:Tea, but that's on the way to being deleted too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. There's support for moving/renaming more than deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy (not delete) Template meant to promote good faith, or at least mellowness and munchies. Substing isn't an issue, we don't require an index of wikipedians given to the occasional toke. Lets draw the line once we get to {{eightball}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
userfy -- Ned Scott 05:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (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.