Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 13

< November 12	November 14 >

November 13

Template:Unn

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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template without any potential use. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I think the author was unaware of the existence of Template:X1 as a "template sandbox." VictorianMutant^(Talk) 23:28, 13 November 2011 (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:Carlos Saldanha

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 Relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 21#Template:Carlos Saldanha. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:14, 21 November 2011 (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:American folklore

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, but reformat. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American folklore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ginormous template harnessing a totally slapdash, random who's who of famous people from Columbus to MLK. And somehow in the same damn template, we've got things like Br'er Rabbit, jackalopes and a mish mash of cultural archetypes like lumberjacks. This template can't make up its mind what it wants to be. It's huge, unwieldy and unfocused, tying together way too wide of a scope of stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! I don't even remember creating this, but looking back on the templates history, I see it was originally "American tall tales", which seems a legitimate (and not overly ginormous) template to me. Move back to "American tall tales" and edit accordingly. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep: There needs to some template dealing with the topic Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too big and overbroad. This is what we have Category:American folklore for (which incidentally could use some organizational work, maybe we can take some of the structure from this template over there?). I'm willing to bet that this navbox is bigger than several of the individual pages it links to! --N Y Kevin @009, i.e. 23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Needs some manipulation and cleanup (starting with the immediate deletion of the redlinks), but is fairly easily fixable, and serves a useful purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix and keep - with a focus on folklore/tall tales (eliminate the purely history aspect). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix and keep - fully agree with 'skeezix1000' above, and partly with 'the man in question'. Also 'American' in the title shows an Anglophone and Kanuckophobe bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.153.45 (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2011 (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.

Infobox Shipwreck event and location templates

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 after information has been transfered. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per conversation at WT:SHIPS it is felt that the above two templates are redundant to the existing {{Infobox ship begin}}. The parameters in both of the above templates contain information that can be placed in the ship begin template while other information belongs in the body of the article. The location parameter is redundant to the availability of simple placement in the article body; etc. Brad (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Benea (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shipwrecks are (were) ships, so the normal ship infobox is enough and the additional information can be included in the article body. Tupsumato (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wreck Event - this just duplicates ship infobox info but in a cumbersome and overly detailed manner. No opinion ATM on the other template. Gatoclass (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC) On reflection, I guess we can delete that one too. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'IF' Delete only if the information contained is moved to 'ship begin' and/or body of text first.
See latest discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after ensuring that any content has been transferred to another template or is already in the article, (per Gwillhickers). I'm all in favour of tidying up our menagerie of templates, but what we show to readers must take priority. bobrayner (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shipwrecks are not generally mobile, so if infobox ship is used on these articles where ships have become immobile parts of the environment, then the coordinates should be included somehow, like how {{infobox building}} has a location parameter. It doesn't need to be a shipwreck to become something like this, the Queen Mary is a permanently moored hotel, so has literally become a building. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2011 (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:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

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) 00:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with redundant information from Template:Kanye West singles. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 04:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inly the Loud articles have this template for easy access. I actually think it's a good idea to have this for topics with have 10 or more articles. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Calvin. There are many articles about one theme (album) and why not in an own template?! Ilikeriri (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's two. Both are nominated for deletion. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Redundant information from {{Kanye West}} and {{Kanye West singles}}. Novice7 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let me first say that two of the non-single articles fail notability. "Dark Fanasy" and "Blame Game". Totally redundant template. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Wikipedian Penguin and per nom too. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Plus, some of these articles on MBDTF are really lacking in notability.--mikomango mwa! 05:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another totally useless template. Share the same opinion as for the Loud template. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 11:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:52, 19 November 2011 (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:Loud (Rihanna album)

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) 00:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Loud (Rihanna album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with redundant information from Template:Rihanna singles. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 04:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inly the Loud articles have this template for easy access. I actually think it's a good idea to have this for topics with have 10 or more articles. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Calvin. There are many articles about one theme (album) and why not in an own template?! Ilikeriri (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry, I'm also Rihanna fan and considerably edit her articles, however, I really think that this template is useless. Everything the it possesses it's placed in Rihanna singles and Rihanna. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 10 articles is not a large enough scope for a navbox. I see this template as totally redundan and have to agree with IHelpWhenICan and Tomica. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nomination. {{Rihanna singles}} and {{Rihanna}} already exists, so this template is redundant. Novice7 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely unnecessary in place of {{Rihanna}} and the singles one. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Big Rihanna fan and heavy editor of her articles, but I have to agree with Tomica1111...it seems to me that it's premature. Unless Loud becomes such a huge cultural phenomenon that it inspires 5 more articles, it seems to be quite redundant. If it becomes the rule that albums with 10 articles get their own template, then I guess it's fine but it seems like overkill.--mikomango mwa! 05:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it allowed to have such templates? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^ Nope. Delete per nomination. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:51, 19 November 2011 (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.