Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 4

< February 3	February 5 >

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FilmSpot is no longer an active website. Has since moved to Movietome. — Thorpe | talk 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Agreed, we no longer need this thing. Liscobeck (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (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 debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Template for 3 games in a series with no real use - a see also section could include this information, thus making this template unnecessary. . Son (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. However short the series, this infobox provides genuine utility as a navigational template for navigating between them. There's no reason why the series shouldn't be expanded. Happy‑melon 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There's only three links, I'm sure they are important. I feel it could be expanded, however. Maybe include characters as well? Liscobeck (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It's pretty much useless and can be replaced by a category as it is now, but it can be improved with an expansion, i.e. characters, settings and something else that I can't quite come up with now. --Kaizer13 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Even if there is only a few game in the series, a template should be applied for easy navigation. Martarius (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to have this template on its own. Suggest merge with {{United States presidential election, 2008}}. — Philip Stevens (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Editors are deleting names as their spouses drop out of the race, which means it will whittle away to pointlessness. End it now. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Wasted Time R. Except that it's already unnecessary. --Son (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - will certainly become useless, even if it is not already. Happy‑melon 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - After the nominations are done, what will we need this for? Get rid of it. Liscobeck (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Hahahaha...yep. This might have worked in a gossip mag, but that is not what Wikipedia is. At least in some respects. Delete away o sunny day!
Delete - Already stated many times above, in 10 years nobody will rememebr or care. Mr mark taylor (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Agreed. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above, and because this navbox is not useful for navigation. For example, if you're looking up the Michelle Obama article, how often is there a compelling need to look up Barbara Richardson or Judith Giuliani? szyslak 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It makes sense to link the actual candidates but why the spouses. Whichever candidate eventually wins, we can include her/his spouse at {{US First Ladies}} or {{US First Gentlemen}}. Green Giant (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2008 (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 debate was keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This category/template serves as a blatant magnet for WP:CRYSTAL violations, articles about obviously non-notable recordings, rumor-monging, and general fancruft, completely ignoring the fact that there is no deadline. At present there are over 600 albums in this category, more than a few of which will never even come into existence, and many more of which will never be notable. In an ideal move, I'd like to include the deletion of most of the articles falling in this category, for the same reasons of general non-notability. — Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. No evidence to suggest that this template has any influence over the creation of articles (though perhaps it should carry a note about WP:CRYSTAL). The template provides useful categorisation, which, if nothing else, makes it easy to identify those articles that are the real problem here. PC78 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. As above--Play Brian Moore (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Per above. It provides useful categorization, and it's really important to warn people about the possibility of information to change. You may be right about some of the articles tagged by this template, but please consider the existence of articles that are notable and based on verifiable claims. Victao lopes (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Delete I agree with Orange Mike that it's a magnet for WP:CRYSTAL violations, but it also serves as a tracking device to afd, prod, or speedy those violations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- reply - How often does the process succeed, Carlos? Every time I try to get even the most obscure article of this sort deleted, I get hit with a barrage of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. There seems to be a strong belief out there that every album, EP or single that ever was or ever will be is inherently notable; notability is becoming a joke in this area. The ultimate result is the response below this one, from Kaizer13. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - You're right of course, changing my !vote (like it matters)... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the solution is to be more vigilant about keeping rumor and unsourced material out of the articles, not to completely zap the template. - eo (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Useful for future album articles that should exist, absense won't help remove future album articles that shouldn't exist. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the reasoning of PC78 & eo. tomasz. 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Just because many of the articles you find using the template are non-notable, that doesn't mean all of them should be deleted, along with the template. I can think of a few articles with the template that detail an album that's in the process of recording/awaiting release with a date set, etc. I think that could fall under "scheduled event". If you find any articles that merit deletion, you should deal with them on an individual basis rather than try to get rid of a template many of them happen to share. Pele Merengue (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, absolutely. TheWho71 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, without a doubt. There are albums that are due to come out in the future. That's not a WP:CRYSTAL issue because a verifiable source is saying the album is due out on x day. --Son (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per above reasons. Dan (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. No good arguments for, and is a very useful tool. Nobody cares about it violating your "user-accepted" guidelines, all you're doing is decreasing the usefulness and availability of Wikipedia. --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- reply - Oh, I see: our guidelines here are garbage. That's a really telling argument you've got there. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Rep-reply - Heh, sore loser ain't ya. --Kaizer13 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a sore loser isn't helpful. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not helpful, but it is a correct description in this case... Laynethebangs (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, per above reasons. I see Orangemike's reasoning, but because of the above arguments, we must keep this template. Liscobeck (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and note that I just added a guideline note to the noinclude section of the template. I believe this sufficiently addresses the concerns raised by this TfD, but recognises per above that there is plenty of scope for encyclopedic articles with verifiable information on future albums. Category:Living people is not an invitation to create an article about somebody because they are a living person. BigBlueFish (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep If this AND the scrubs episode pages are gone then I'll have no more reasons to even use wikipedia.
Keep, precisely because these are often problem articles, and the template can be an easy way to find articles that need review. It also serves a purpose for the reader, letting them know to take the information in the article with a grain of salt. Like Orangemike, I am frustrated at the number of non-notable album articles out there, but instead of throwing out the template, I prefer to work on the real problem, the articles themselves. (FWIW, when someone uses a WP:OTHERCRAP or WP:ILIKEIT argument in an AfD, it's perfectly okay to point out that it's not a valid reason to keep.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per reasoning of User:PC78. --Bolonium (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, agree with PC78 Vacanzeromane (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Doesn't really seem to be a real reason to delete a useful categorizational tool. Might as well stop user's abilities to make articles. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Can be used effectively. You say there are over 600 albums with this tag, so feel free to nominate the articles for deletion. This template does serve a purpose, and some encyclopedic content can be branded with this template.Tkgd2007 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep So, by your reasoning, an article on a new album should be created on the day of its release? Wikipedia articles on future albums are often the internet's most looked-to source for information on that particular album, as they are typically a culmination of all information floating around on the topic. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC) ♣
- Comment. Let's Snow close this one. --Son (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It's not the fault of the template that the articles end up with crystal balling. Having the template will also allow all to see which albums have been created as new [upcoming] albums, allowing moderators and admins to keep an eye on such articles and see if they're worthy of their own articles. Perhaps the template could include WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CITE in it to encourage editors to make the articles at a standard worthy of keeping the article, but again the reason the delete the template itself ("This category/template serves as a blatant magnet...") is hardly its own fault. That would be the fans of the artist, particularly those who lack knowledge of using Wikipedia or understand the need for reliable sources. -- Harish - 10:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per all of the above. This is an important template. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Klptyzm and PC78 Dadude3320 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Snow close as per all of the above. It's not a magnet for CRYSTAL violations, it's just a notice that the album's not out yet. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 20:36, 9 February 2008 (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 debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Template:Multi banners/doc~~ Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8 - Happy‑melon 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Portal United States
Template:Portal United Kingdom
Template:Portal Switzerland
Template:Portal psychology
Template:Portal France
Template:Portal energy
Template:Portal companies

delete per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_27#Template:Multi_banners--OpenDay53 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete all, and establish as a precedent for the standardisation of all portal link templates. The benefits of having all the portal links in one place and using standardised formatting easily outweigh the logisistical difficulties of completing such a consolidation. Happy‑melon 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, redundant to {{portal|Name|Image}}. Picaroon (t) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this & its SEVEN redirects. Only used on about 15 articles that have since been standardized to Infobox Settlement. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, obsolete. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) (creator of the original template and some of the variants) 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I forgot to mention above that it looked like someone had gone through and standardized all the Dutch infoboxes a while ago and those 15 articles somehow got over looked or were created afterward. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Wow, what a mess!! Another WP:CSD#T3 candidate (see below). Happy‑melon 22:26, 4 February 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This template was apparently created to avoid a link to the non-disambiguation page V2 in {{Latin alphabet|V}}, despite the fact that many of the other links in both templates link to non-disambiguation pages as described here. The only differences in the output of the two templates appear to be some minor formatting differences (which IMO should be consistent across all the letter articles) and the mentioned linking of "V2" to V2 (disambiguation) instead of V2. Thus, this template is redundant, inconsistent, and will make maintenance of the Latin alphabet navbox more difficult if any consistency is to be maintained. This template should be deleted and this edit reverted. — Anomie ⚔ 03:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, and note that this template would have been a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#T3. If you find any others similar, mark them with {{db-t3|~~~~~|NameOfTemplateTheyDuplicate}}, in this case {{db-t3|~~~~~|Latin alphabet}} and we can save on the bureaucracy of a TfD. Happy‑melon 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I considered that, but given the big "disputed" box that was there when I filed this I decided to go here. Anomie ⚔ 04:02, 5 February 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my first template deletion nomination, so I hope I'm doing it right. (1) The template isn't being used on any episode articles, because each episode article has been redirected to the main list of episodes page. (2) The only difference between this template and the regular infobox episode is there's a field for Titular reference (ie, which 80s song the episode is named after) but there has been no definite confirmation by the producers/networks to each song for each title so it's all original research. (3) If an episode does become deemed notable, the regular episode infobox will suffice. — Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Unused, and redundant to {{Infobox Television episode}} anyway. PC78 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and yes, you're doing it exactly right. Like the listing just above, this template would also be a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#T3, but walk before you run. Happy‑melon 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - No use for it. --Kaizer13 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2008 (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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 4

[edit] Template:FilmSpot

[edit] Template:Super Smash Bros. series

[edit] Template:2008 Presidential Candidate Spouses

[edit] Template:future album

[edit] Portal template

[edit] Template:Infobox Dutch municipality

[edit] Template:LatinalphabetV

[edit] Template:Infobox D:TNG episode

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search