Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 25

[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 discussion was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Buddhist biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox religious biography}} into which any necessary fields should be merged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:49, 25 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete as unused. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Treviso FBC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Football squad template for a team that does not exist anymore. The club was excluded from professional football on July 2009, and all of its players were indeed released. Angelo (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Damages (TV series) episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan and unecessary Magioladitis (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Myth2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very old template created for obsolete classification process. If this was ever a current project, it's long since been replaced by WP:QUALITY. Only used on three articles. Robofish (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (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 discussion was nomination withdrawn. Garion96 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A large discussion to deprecate "Future" templates has concluded with the overwhelming consensus to go through with the deprecation. In the case of this particular template, it was argued that the article should reflect whether or not a film has come out yet, particularly in the lead section. (E.g., "Foo is an upcoming 2009 film...") The template has more served as a placeholder than an actual indicator of swiftly changing information. (Most film articles, in my experience, do not "explode" in growth upon the films' release.) The template populates upcoming films in the Upcoming films category, so I ask whomever mass-removes the templates to ensure that the category is re-added to these articles. —Erik (talkcontrib) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to withdraw. There is a larger discussion about implementing the deprecation of the templates, and I'm afraid I jumped the gun here. I would like to withdraw on a procedural basis (nothing to do with the !votes so far) to permit discussion about widespread action. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that "the template has more served as a placeholder than an actual indicator of swiftly changing information. (Most film articles, in my experience, do not "explode" in growth upon the films' release.)" In general, articles about films with mass appeal expand constantly during production as news about it reaches the media, and once they open a lot of reviews and box office figures are added to the article. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to disagree that there is such a trend. There are some films that have fan bases whose fans contribute to the articles, but this does not apply to all films with mass appeal. Even if a film is popular and performs very well at the box office, this does not equate a conscious effort to expand the article. In addition, most reviews and box office information come after the film's release. By this time, the template has already been removed. Most editors focus on reviews and box office figures... in my experience, not many make a lot of effort in contributing production-related information. A film article can also grow anytime after a film's release, either the week after or the decade after. It just depends on when the conscious effort is made, so the template does not truly mark the occasion. —Erik (talkcontrib) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (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.