Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 6
| < November 5 | November 7 > |
|---|
November 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Linux layers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Used in just one article, so can be transcluded there. The Banner talk 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: Why should it be deleted? I'm against deleting it as a template, as it can be used in quite a few other articles. (Edit: Just added the template into another article.) -- Dsimic (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: It is not an old template and I believe it could be used elsewhere. At least give it time. --K0zka (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It just from September and still only used in one (1) article. The Banner talk 11:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please have a look at Linux and User space articles. That's two times. -- Dsimic (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Per a discussion at WT:VG (WT:VG#Chronology templates, again), this and the other Legend of Zelda templates aren't suitable. Soetermans. T / C 20:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as mostly cruft and unneeded for the articles themselves. KonveyorBelt 20:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As the plot of the Zelda games is standalone, so should it be presented on Wikipedia. Almost all canonical information about a congruent Zelda timeline, as I have understood it, can be found in the The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia. Therefore I suggest all information of this sort is best placed in that Wikipedia article. For now, at least.--Spannerjam 10:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Aside from the above points, said "chronology" is based on a contradictory source partly written by fans, making it as reliable as fanfiction.net. --46.9.123.68 (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I don't think we need it I am not aware of any evidence that the Hyrule Historia is a fan work in any way. To the best of my knowledge the info comes straight from Nintendo so it is official. To be clear. I am only challenging the fan work claim not the deletion of the template.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Second with the contributor above. Hyrule Historia is official. GameLegend (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I don't think we need it I am not aware of any evidence that the Hyrule Historia is a fan work in any way. To the best of my knowledge the info comes straight from Nintendo so it is official. To be clear. I am only challenging the fan work claim not the deletion of the template.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, this information is not usefully served in a template. It is presented in a much more clear and understandable manner at The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia. The titles of each branch are meaningless and/or confusing to an unfamiliar reader and pretty hard for me to parse as a Zelda lore buff as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, but change - I don't think the template should be deleted, as the official chronology has already even revealed and it is now a bigger part of the in-universe overhaul story line. However, I agree that it should be changed in some form that it should make it more simple and understandable. As is, even from a series veteran myself, I believe that the template is too confusing for the average reader and should only contain the absolute necessary information, that is the game's chronological order. As such, I believe that section titles should be changed to something more encyclopedic, and the template rearranged. I don't believe that the Hyrule History article is enough. Something in the lines of this would be better:
| The Legend of Zelda series chronology | ||
|---|---|---|
| Hyrule's Decline | The Dark World | A New World |
Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- delete, cruft Frietjes (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT. Templates shouldn't be made based purely on in-universe fictional content, especially when templates already exist for tracking the game chronologically in an out-of-universe manner. Despite fans gushing over it, the plot-lines aren't even a crucial aspect of the individual games either, player could play through entire games without even noticing or needing to know about these convoluted timelines. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you to some degree. However, wouldn't that line of thought also be applicable to pretty much every other video game chronology templates? (including Template:Mass Effect chronology, Template:Assassin's Creed chronology and others)--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 15:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not even that crazy about those ones either, but regardless, I think the main difference is the importance on plot. Mass Effect games are very plot intensive games that rely heavily on continuity between games. Zelda are not largely not centered around plot, and any sense of continuity is usually rather subtle or unimportant overall to the game. I mean, the over-arching "timeline" wasn't even truly understood or confirmed until they released that book about it. I think that shows how little of an emphasis the actual game's place on it... Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but there are games in the series in which plot is a pretty substantial part of the game. The New World arc (trilogy), for example, which includes The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks, relies pretty heavily on each other's plot and can't be fully understood if the player doesn't know said plot a priori. The strong connection between Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask is another example of this. The fact that Ocarina of Time branches into three different paths is pretty important too. In all, the Legend of Zelda series timeline has always been an hot topic among players and media alike, and I think that's enough to guarantee it's notability and inclusion on Zelda articles.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think "relies heavily" is a rather large overstatement. The games don't hinge on the plot continuity. The focus is clearly on puzzle solving and exploration, and hey, also, there's a bit of plot to tie things together. They all play just fine as stand-alone titles; I know, I've played just about all of them, but these timelines have never come to me naturally, and I've never cared to truly piece them altogether. It just doesn't really matter that much. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think a simpler question is how much do these templates add versus how much space they take up? Mass Effect has a simple enough chronology of 1->2->3; I'd argue you don't even need a template for that kind of detail, but it's also unambiguous. In order to understand the Zelda Universe's continuity you need to read another article; it's not a readily useful template on its own and then essentially serves as a duplication of what should be in the navbox at the bottom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's something I was going to touch on as well. These connections, when they are present and noteworthy, are probably better covered in the respective articles plot or development sections. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think a simpler question is how much do these templates add versus how much space they take up? Mass Effect has a simple enough chronology of 1->2->3; I'd argue you don't even need a template for that kind of detail, but it's also unambiguous. In order to understand the Zelda Universe's continuity you need to read another article; it's not a readily useful template on its own and then essentially serves as a duplication of what should be in the navbox at the bottom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think "relies heavily" is a rather large overstatement. The games don't hinge on the plot continuity. The focus is clearly on puzzle solving and exploration, and hey, also, there's a bit of plot to tie things together. They all play just fine as stand-alone titles; I know, I've played just about all of them, but these timelines have never come to me naturally, and I've never cared to truly piece them altogether. It just doesn't really matter that much. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but there are games in the series in which plot is a pretty substantial part of the game. The New World arc (trilogy), for example, which includes The Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks, relies pretty heavily on each other's plot and can't be fully understood if the player doesn't know said plot a priori. The strong connection between Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask is another example of this. The fact that Ocarina of Time branches into three different paths is pretty important too. In all, the Legend of Zelda series timeline has always been an hot topic among players and media alike, and I think that's enough to guarantee it's notability and inclusion on Zelda articles.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not even that crazy about those ones either, but regardless, I think the main difference is the importance on plot. Mass Effect games are very plot intensive games that rely heavily on continuity between games. Zelda are not largely not centered around plot, and any sense of continuity is usually rather subtle or unimportant overall to the game. I mean, the over-arching "timeline" wasn't even truly understood or confirmed until they released that book about it. I think that shows how little of an emphasis the actual game's place on it... Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you to some degree. However, wouldn't that line of thought also be applicable to pretty much every other video game chronology templates? (including Template:Mass Effect chronology, Template:Assassin's Creed chronology and others)--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 15:30, 14 November 2013 (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.
College football results templates
[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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Duke-Wake Forest Result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Floyd of Rosedale Game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Governor's Victory Bell Game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Heroes Trophy Game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Land Grant Trophy Game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:NC State-South Carolina Result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Notre Dame-USC Result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Shillelagh Trophy Result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
All unused test templates. No transclusions. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William 13:01, 7 November 2013 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No wikilinks so serves no purpose. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not only does it not contain any Wikilinks, bit it's also filled with gaps in the information itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - doesn't provide useful navigation between related articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2013 (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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Articles to be expanded with sources progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template, the deletion has also been supported by the creator.[1] --Eleassar my talk 08:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2013 (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.