Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

Template:David Wain

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 no consensus. I suggest seeking a broader consensus on this issue at an appropriate venue, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Wain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles, including title. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it only navigates three links (not including title). Samwb123^{Please read} 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep three films are enough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Three films aren't really sufficient to require a template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep three is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (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:IrishL

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. In keeping with the two discussions below and on the project talk page, the consensus is that these templates are too broad and ill-defined. No prejudice against creating more narrowly defined navboxes or adding pages to appropriate categories. RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A random collection of links with no inclusion criteria most of which aren't even related Loyalism see also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishA and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishM Gnevin (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per previous request for deletion of similar "series" templates, I'm grateful that someone has finally got the courage to propose these be deleted too. They do not represent a "series" in any meaningful way but rather strike me as a means to mark "wiki territory". They could possibly be replaced with navigational tempaltes (on the politics of national identity in Ireland) but in their current for they should go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Gnevin (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the two templates below, I feel this is just trying to do too much in one template, and is too broad to be useful. Robofish (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the other two templates below. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per previous support of series templates. Have you read WP:TOPICBOX? Can someone explain why series templates must be deleted? The templates are meant as a starting point for additional browsing and research, kind of a categorized 'See also'. I have found them much eaisier to use and more helpful than a jumbled 'See also'. Why do you wish to harm Wikipedia's usability? The templates are only placed on pages that indeed are related to the template. If you believe a page to not fall under that subject, consider removing the template from that single page and if necessary, removing the link in the template. No need to delete the entire template. Try to preserve useful content. --LEKI (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intrusive and too general to be really useful. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons outlined here. ~Asarlaí 15:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this template is deleted, its articles should be put into categories with similar headings (example: Category:Ulster loyalism, Category:Ulster loyalist organisations, Category:Ulster loyalist publications, Category:Ulster loyalist symbols, etc). ~Asarlaí 15:46, 5 February 2010 (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:Unionism in Ireland

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. The concerns expressed for this template are similar to those for the IrishR template below: a navigation box that contains an excessive number of links that aren't clearly related, illustrated in this case by the fact that the template isn't transcluded in most of the articles it links to. No prejudice against creating more narrowly defined navboxes, or placing articles in appropriate categories. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unionism in Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A random collection of links with no inclusion criteria most of which aren't even related Unionism see also: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishA and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishM Gnevin (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per previous request for deletion of similar "series" templates, I'm grateful that someone has finally got the courage to propose these be deleted too. They do not represent a "series" in any meaningful way but rather strike me as a means to mark "wiki territory". They could possibly be replaced with navigational tempaltes (on the politics of national identity in Ireland) but in their current for they should go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Gnevin (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the template below, I feel this one contains too many links to be useful. It would be better as an 'Outline'-type article or a category than a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the template below. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per my statement above, including material at WP:TOPICBOX and WP:PRESERVE. Series topic boxes increase Wikipedia's usability. I don't see them as marking 'wiki territory'; no editors own pages and if a page should not be included it can be removed. Unsure what Rannphairti means by replacing with navigational templates (thats what they are, right?). --LEKI (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intrusive and too general to be really useful. This one is only transcluded to three articles despite linking to 24 articles in the "Parties & Organisations" section alone, a measure of the low interest of article editors in keeping it. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three is more than zero. The topicbox is indeed in use. If it's only in three articles, why not leave it in those three or remove it from them individually and discuss such changes there? Also, the number of articles a template is useful in does not indicate the measure of interest of editors in keeping it; your logic here is faulty. --LEKI (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons outlined here. ~Asarlaí 15:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this template is deleted, its articles should be put into categories with similar headings (example: Category:Unionism in Ireland, Category:Irish unionist organisations, Category:Irish unionist publications, Category:Irish unionist symbols, etc). ~Asarlaí 15:46, 5 February 2010 (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:IrishR

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. There is not a policy violation or redundancy here, but there is a consensus that the template is too broad and lacks clear inclusion criteria. Editors are welcome to create more narrowly defined navboxes linking some of the same articles, or associate the articles to appropriate categories if the topic is too broad for a useful navbox. RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A random collection of links with no inclusion criteria most of which aren't even related Irish Republicianism. Also the inclusion so prominently of physical force Republicianism presents POV issues for non physical force Republicianism such as Fianna Fáil

Delete Per previous request for deletion of similar "series" templates, I'm grateful that someone has finally got the courage to propose these be deleted too. They do not represent a "series" in any meaningful way but rather strike me as a means to mark "wiki territory". They could possibly be replaced with navigational tempaltes (on the politics of national identity in Ireland) but in their current for they should go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Gnevin (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too excessively inclusive to be useful as a navigational template. For this to be kept, it would have to be drastically cut down to only the most directly relevant links (say, the first five). As it is, it's trying to be a category in template space - and we already have a Category:Irish Republican Movement. Robofish (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per my two statement above; also see WP:TOPICBOX and WP:PRESERVE. Series topic boxes facilitate ease-of-use on Wikipedia. Also not sure what Gnevin means about physical force and why that can't be fixed rather than all 5 templates deleted outright. --LEKI (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't understand about "physical force", then the template ought to help you. If it doesn't, where does that leave the "ease-of-use" argument? Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what physical force is. What I was asking about is what Gnevin meant in his accusation of pov. If Fianna Fail needs to be removed, fine. If the template needs to be clarified to show the seperation between these factions, fine. To me, these do not seem to be reasons to delete the template.--LEKI (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I say, If you want to understand what Gnevin meant in his accusation of pov, the answer is there in the articles; the template ought to help you. If it doesn't, what is it good for? Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually Scolaire, I'm not asking for someone to repeatedly tell me to go do research or read a bunch of articles. This is a discussion, where people provide arguments why they think a template should be deleted. I have asked for a simple statement on why including Fianna Fail may be POV (I think I understand what they mean) and more importantly, why this cannot be fixed by the simple removal of Fianna Fail from the template. xFD is not cleanup. --LEKI (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And I'm only asking, what is the template good for? Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intrusive and too general to be really useful. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or reduce by a half, or group each sublist under a single link.Red Hurley (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just noticed the arguments made by Asarlaí over here. Editors just coming to this TFD may be interested in looking at that previous discussion of these 5 templates. Also wanted to point out that these templates are not namespace violations, are not redundant to other templates, do not suffer from total lack of use, and they are not policy violations. Thanks for considering this. --LEKI (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons outlined here. ~Asarlaí 15:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this template is deleted, its articles should be put into categories with similar headings (example: Category:Irish republicanism, Category:Irish republican organisations, Category:Irish republican publications, Category:Irish republican symbols, etc). ~Asarlaí 15:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This series of templates may have started out as a good idea, but they have grown bigger and bigger to become wannabe-categories, and this one is (I think) the biggest of them. Their position as sidebars and high-contrast colouring makes them dominate any article they are placed on, becoming a sort of branding stamp, which has the unwelcome effect of dividing Irish political history into simplistic blocs which do not reflect the complex interactions and overlaps between the strands.
I would not object to linking some of these articles through smaller, unobtrusive, collapsible templates at the bottom of articles; but any such templates should be much more tightly-focused, and much less prominent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Should some notice of this discussion not have been posted here at the very lest?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejedice to recreation of some smaller templates that go at the bottom of articles that either are more specifically focussed on specific periods of Irish republicanism or one that gives a general overview of the essentials. 2 lines of K₃₀₃

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:Colombas Jenukshan

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colombas Jenukshan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be an experiment related to a user's non-notable autobiography. Favonian (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree it probably was for an article that violated WP:BIO. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:02, 3 February 2010 (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:Green Bay Packers retired numbers

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 Redirect to {{Packers retired numbers}}. Information already appears in table form in both Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers and List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers, and any additional graphical representation would be redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Bay Packers retired numbers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to {{Packers retired numbers}}. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be incorporated into the article, as it is in Cleveland_Browns? Certainly has more visual value. SixFourThree (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

The graphics are already incorporated into List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers, and templates are not supposed to be used to just show text on just one article. Feel free to edit the Green Bay Packers by adding the content itself if you like. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Samwb123^{Please read} 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subst into Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers and delete. Attribution requirements under the GFDL and CC-by-SA 3.0 licenses ought to be satisfied as long as we follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution with regard to the edit summary (e.g., text originally contributed by User:SixFourThree on 28 February 2008, 17 April 2008 and 17 September 2008, and by User:Star QB on 8 March 2008). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:20, 10 February 2010 (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 Stunners

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 Speedy delete by NawlinWiki Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Stunners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template about non notable group - article for group speedy deleted multiple times noq (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (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:Antigua and Barbuda general election header

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 Speedy delete per author approval Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antigua and Barbuda general election header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Antigua and Barbuda general election party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Antigua and Barbuda general election total (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template which is redundant to one of a myriad of other Election box templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These were used until I compiled all Antigua and Barbuda election results under a single superior template format. As such, they are now unnecessary. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (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.