Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 24

< May 23	May 25 >

May 24

Template:Scarface

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 keep (just) Happy‑melon 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real navigation value. Only contains four links. It used to be primarily for linking to various character articles, but all of those articles (except for Tony Montana) have been deleted or merged after their subjects were deemed not notable enough to have separate articles about them. No point in holding on to the template. — Hnsampat (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep With Tony Montana and Scarface (soundtrack), that ups it to six. I also think maybe a "list of characters" page could have been made as an alternative to a straight redirect for those past articles (something should at least be said about the main characters). Still a small amount of links, sure, but it's still useful. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not simply have a list of characters on the main Scarface (1983 film) page? There's really no need to have a separate page, given that this is only one film that spawned no sequels or no other instances where the characters became recurring. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends on how much there is to say about them, but you are right, at this point it could easily go on the parent article. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is fairly redundant to me, everything on the template is also present on the 1983 film page, including mention of the 1932 film. I hate to see these sorts of templates pop up. The more that pop up, the more crowded article pages get. I'm not even a fan of the awards templates that seem to have proliferated this year. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not a hugely useful template, but these articles are all on the same subject, and don't all link to one another already, so the template helps. Six related articles is enough to justify a navbox, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 23:19, 27 May 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:VaishnavaSampradayasrs

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. Singu larity 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple things wrong with this template, and a better template that is in use is found at Template:VaisnavaSampradayas. The template is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu-centric, with the caption stating "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu united four sampradayas into one", and with the bottom line pointing to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. There are also problems with the v•d•e (view/discuss/edit) links, which all point to the corresponding links on Template:VaisnavaSampradayas. This template also only points to the leaders of each sampradaya, while Template:VaisnavaSampradayas correctly points to both the sampradayas and their leaders, as well as linking to their associated philosophies. Template:VaisnavaSampradayas is more complete, accurate, NPOV, and has no (known) link problems. For these reasons I think Template:VaisnavaSampradayas should be used and Template:VaishnavaSampradayasrs deleted. Some members of WP:VAISHNAVA have agreed that this template be deleted and the other template be used instead. Also, this template is currently used only on a user page, while the other is in use on actual articles. It would be deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (because the author has supported deletion) as well as WP:CSD#T3. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is clearly an earlier template, its unused and should have been deleted under speedy deletion procedures.Wikidās -ॐ 06:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. No articles seem to be using it, although it is now referenced on many talk pages. =Axlq 06:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note- since its clearly a mistake and is not referenced to any article, it should be deleted without a delay, as the snow will just keep rolling. Wikidās -ॐ 06:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be deleted under WP:CSD#T3, which means that the TfD must stand for 7 days. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ATG ^Contact 09:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, better template available.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per nom. Jared Preston (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikidas' SNOW comment above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:07, 28 May 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.