Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 21

< December 20	December 22 >

December 21

Template:In Plain Sight

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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In Plain Sight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically, this is a template for only two articles. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unnecessary. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 23:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough links for a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two articles doesn't justify a whole navbox. As far as I can see, it's not even used on List of In Plain Sight episodes, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:15, 29 December 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.

Template:Nname

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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template that is unnecessary. It states "This template can be used for the subject of a lead in biographical articles." We do not need a template to properly embolden names and position nicknames. It is more complicated to use than placing style formatting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a template for formatting, not just outputting plain content, so I don't think the passage Black Falcon quotes is applicable. Nonetheless, I don't see this template as being useful. The users who don't know where to place a nickname, or who don't know that the first appearance of the subject's name should be bolded (the two things this template does), are not likely to know how to use a template correctly either. Better to stick with basic wiki-formatting as suggested in the nom. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ultimately a template for displaying article text, even if its raison d'être is to order that text in a certain way. In any case, I agree that simply correcting the location of a misplaced nickname or adding a hidden comment to articles for which this is a recurring problem are better approaches. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this really just serves to complicate things, it's much easier to use the basic formatting. As RLO919 said, people who can't position nicknames correctly probably can't find or even use a template to do it for them, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:19, 29 December 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.

Template:Northwestern Wildcats Football

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 redundant to the other template. RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northwestern Wildcats Football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is already Template:NorthwesternWildcatsFootball, which includes more seasons than this template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If there already is one, then this is redundant and unnecessary. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 06:05, 24 December 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.

Template:AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs

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 userfied to User:TheGreenMartian/AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't see how this would ever be used in a constructive way. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really unhelpful, and the joke is also totally unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely unhelpful. -SpacemanSpiff 09:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No use at all. Could even by a copyright violation to use the full text in this manner (With no critical commentary, I don't see how this can be fair use. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Only use is as humour, and so userfication is proper. No reason for deletion from userspace at that point. Many user templates contain humour, as a point of reference. And humour is a matter of taste - humourlessness is not. Collect (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I do support the idea that humour should be often be preserved in userspace, this principle applies only in limited circumstances. Allowing editors to preserve Wikipedia-related humour for which Wikipedia editors are responsible in no way suggests that Wikipedia should become a repository for humour in general. The text of this template is available on various other websites, is unrelated to Wikipedia, and was not created by one of our editors; so, even putting aside potential non-free use issues (highlighted above by Bradjamesbrown), a userfied version of this template would fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not constructive, and potential copyright issues. --RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFCC, not really useful. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I couldn't exactly put it in my user namespace. I'm kinda a new user and I would like it if every template I created was userfied instead of deleted. You see, I need those templates for a page in my namespace and if they're deleted, I'd have to delete an entire section! TheGreenMartian (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete - Serves no purpose other than humor, though I do not get the joke. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See All your base are belong to us. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I get it now. It's still not worthy of being a template though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't possibly be used constructively (unless it was being used in the AYBABTU article, which it isn't and doesn't need to be) and is a potential copyvio. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:25, 29 December 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.