Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27

[edit]
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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rpotd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this template and the large class of templates with the prefix RPOTD/date (here) for deletion (or userfication by someone with a bulk-edit tool that can handle almost 200 moves - I'm not doing it by hand). This userspace-based effort basically duplicates the featured picture on the main page. It is also dormant or dead, and the userspace pages where the efforts were based belong to an editor (User:GeorgeMoney) that is "retired". Thetrick (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - While it is from a retired editor and it has been inactive for a while, I have to disagree with the nom that it "basically duplicates the featured picture on the main page." These pics are ones that would never make the front page, and it was created to give people who don't have the best photog skills a chance to be recognized. It'd take a lot of work and effort, which I, unfortunately, don't have lately with my new job (though if it were given a chance, I could take it over in the future), but if someone could maintain it in the meantime, I see it as a valuable asset, mainly because people are being recognized for work that's no worse than anyone else's, just not as crisp or clear a sit should be, and it encourages more contribution. Just my 2¢.... Eagles Fan In Tampa 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per EaglesFan's excellent reasoning. –xenocidic (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about we move all of the subpages to someone's userspace (not mine), but keep the template. The template could be a redirect to the new userspace where everything will be located, to not break all of the other pages on which it is transcluded.
    Thus, the only thing related to the RPOTD that will be in the template space is one single template, which will be a redirect anyways.
    This could be easily done with AWB or a bot script: simply move each page from Template:RPOTD/Whatever to User:Whoever/potd/Whatever, then on Template:RPOTD: #REDIRECT [[User:Whoever/potd]] --GM 22:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone can shove the majority of this pile into userspace I'll withdraw the nom. --Thetrick (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment OK, I will try to find a userspace for all of this to go into. I don't want it to be mine, since I am no longer maintaining it, and it just wouldn't be fair to all of the maintainers. --GM 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I'll take GM's word that he will make an effort to move this to userspace. --Thetrick (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, it was a great idea to begin with, but it was incredibly difficult to keep updated when you don't have a lot of help. Maybe, if deleted, it could be revived sometime in the future if there ever was a lot more users committed to keep it going. --Dtbohrertalkcontribs 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok, Presidentman (formerly Patricknoddy) has volunteered to maintain and keep the RPOTD in his userspace. Once it is all finalized I will make a script (or do it myself) and move all the pages there. Then this TfD can be finally put to rest :). GM 22:01, 14 July 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.
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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:America's Top 10 Golf Courses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is basically an WP:ADVERT for Golf Digest magazine. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 27 June 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.
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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan-Korea Early Exchanges (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused and has not been touched for about a year. Clearly a single use template in any case. — PC78 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 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.
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 redirect to {{OR-note}}. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User-built warning template. Duplicates OR-note and probably others. Thetrick (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:02, 27 June 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.
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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test4b-n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Odd template that mentions vandalism has occurred, but does not accuse the individual of doing it, mentions further blocks are possible, yet doesn't stress this is a level 4 warnings, maybe this template is too nice, if that is possible. MBisanz talk 02:37, 27 June 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.
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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Trivial information, indiscriminate. It is not, for example, important to know that Peter Nedved appeared in the 2004 SI Swimsuit issue along with Alex Rodriguez, Anna Kounrakova or Jessica White, or that one of the shoot locations was Wyoming. — Reso lute 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating:

(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the encouragement of TonyTheTiger on my user talk page, I have "...considered the implication of the deletion of the templates for articles such as Raphael Mazzucco or Stewart Shining as well as Marisa Miller, Heidi Klum or Yamila Diaz" as well as Joanne Gair. I will stand by my vote. I think the long list of templates at the end of the page unbalances these articles and makes some of them look very stubby. I would suggest a single template replace these year-by-year templates, linking to list articles or traditional articles for each year. For a very quick and incomplete example of what I mean, see here. ZueJay (talk) 00:49, 1 July 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.