Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6

[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 Keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems redundant.100110100 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 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.
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) 20:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little used notice template; should be replaced with {{notice}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get almost the same appearance by using {{notice|image=blank.svg|This is a note}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace transclusions with {{Notice}} in the format suggested by Gadget850. No need for a little-used template that is redundant to a more widely used template with better options. --RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 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.
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) 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pop singer Neighbours actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pop singer Home and Away actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pop singer EastEnders actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can't see a reason for grouping actors who appeared in a particular soap opera and then went on to have a career in music. anemoneprojectors talk 18:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary intersection of properties which neither defines nor is likely to be encyclopedically useful. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navigation templates should not be based on very tenuous connections. This type of connection seems particularly undesirable, since actors who appear on soaps may have all sorts of different career paths after. We would not want a proliferation of navboxes for "EastEnders actors who became movie actors", "General Hospital actors who later worked on Broadway", etc. --RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 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.
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 a navigation template without enough distinct links. RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fred Figglehorn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few links, unuseful template. Karppinen (talk) 15:02, 6 March 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imdfb name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another varient of the template below. Again, site is not a valid external link per WP:EL, nor is it a noteworthy site. Just some random wiki about firearms being randomly added by its creator to various film, television, and firearm articles (all of which additions were since removed). As templates should only exist for valid ELs that have wide use, this, like the other, should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 March 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template for creating links to an website that does not meet WP:EL nor WP:RS, so it has no place in any article. Site itself is completely unnotable. Just another random wiki. It was tossed on a few film articles by its creator, but those uses have been since reverted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As its creator, I would expect you to say keep. "Valuable resource" has no meaning. The site is unnotable and is an open wiki. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:21, 6 March 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.
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 {{Otheruses}}. Avoiding the work of replacing transclusions is not a compelling argument, but the long history of this template means that many editors may use it without realizing it is deprecated/deleted. RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated.100110100 (talk) 10:33, 6 March 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.
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. Will userfy if requested. RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it exists it should be in user space, but better is for it not to exist at all. We already have plenty of barnstars etc, without individual users making up their own equivalents. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 8 March 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Personal template that belongs in userspace. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete If it exists at all it should be in user space, but I don't think it should exist even there. The whole tone of the template is uncivil, and its purpose is essentially to serve as a threat. Also the wording "Your recent edits have been classed as.." is designed to give the impression that this is some sort of official classification, not a judgement by an individual editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 8 March 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.
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. This is arguably a userbox (despite the non-standard format), and thus should have been discussed at WP:MFD. However, an unused box in template space is not likely to have a different fate based on venue, so I'm going ahead with deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused & unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:37, 6 March 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:36, 6 March 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary user template. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Well, that's kind of neat. Ruodyssey (talk) 14:20, 9 March 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused & redundant to {{Busy}}, which has much more options and looks much better. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not transcluded anywhere. Fleet Command (talk) 09:36, 6 March 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1912 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nothing that requires a template. The Evil IP address (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G2. 09:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
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. Prior consensus is not required to make changes, but any subsequent consensus that is formed is relevant, and in this case the current consensus favors a single combined template over separate ones. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Completely replaced with Template:Resident Evil series. Fleet Command (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only made redundant by someone whose opinion dissented from having this content split out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made redundant with a consensus. In addition, why should we have three navigational templates for a group of interconnected topics when one is enough? Three templates only bewilders visitor. Fleet Command (talk) 09:20, 6 March 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.
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. Prior consensus is not required to make changes, but any subsequent consensus that is formed is relevant, and in this case the current consensus favors a single combined template over separate ones. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template that is now completely replaced with Template:Resident Evil series. This template was the result of an effort to split the Template:Resident Evil series into two, without a prior consensus but it did not properly cover all film articles. I have replaced all instances of it with Template:Resident Evil series. Fleet Command (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only made redundant by someone whose opinion dissented from having this content split out. And does it matter that this noncontroversial action had no consensus? Not every action on Wikipedia has to have a poll attached to it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made redundant with a consensus. In addition, why should we have three navigational templates for a group of interconnected topics when one is enough? Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 6 March 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.