The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Mike Peel 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense, but doesn't really meet G2. There has been a slew of this 'ellie' related vandalism recently, I would like to know where it all comes from! — Richard Ω6 12 21:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Singu larity 06:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
A rather bizarre snapshot of one week late last year, orphaned and made redundant by the more functional {{ Top five female doubles}} and {{ Top five male doubles}}. —- DeLarge 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was invalid: user does not understand the template structure — METS501 ( talk) 20:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This template seems to be a duplicate of {{ db-reason}}. It contains the same text, except for this one doesn't give you a warning that no reason was given.. GrooveDog ( talk) 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Singu larity 06:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Requested nobody else edit [the article]" until "the aforementioned editor is satisfied"? Any legitimate use would be redundant to Template:Inuse or one of the related templates. -- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
We already have Template:Top ten male golfers, so why the need for another list that is based on some "north american" (sic) bias? ZimZalaBim talk 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they have it for tennis so I figured we could do it for golf also. And by the way I am making a top 10 for all the continents, North America is the only continent where all 10 are from the same country.
Template:Top ten European male golfers
michfan2123 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I can easily update it every week. The Top ten North American male tennis players template has been around since May and it has not been deleted. I do not see how it is any different than the golf one.
michfan2123 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Isn't this a bit of a long way for a shortcut? The point of templates is so you can make edits to a single page which will automatically update on all the other pages it's transcluded to, thereby avoiding the need to manually edit those pages. But as players come into or drop out of the top 10, you'll need to manually edit those pages anyway to add/remove the template itself. There's also the issue of original research. Do the lists exist elsewhere, or did you create them yourself using the data at owgr.com? -- DeLarge 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Only the World Rankings matter. In terms of qualifications for other tournaments, it is only the world rankings that have any bearing on a player's ability to play in a tournament.
Supertigerman
21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As per arguments by
ZimZalaBim
talk below for
Template:Top ten north american male golfers, and violations of
WP:OR and
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the following similar templates should be deleted:
Template:Top ten Oceanic male golfers
Template:Top ten Asian male golfers
Template:Top ten African male golfers
Template:Top ten South American male golfers
Template:Top ten European male golfers
Supertigerman
21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This template is unhelpful in the encyclopedic sense. A worst-case scenario of this usage would be for an ensemble film, there would be a dozen templates at the end of an article covering each actor's filmography. The filmography for
Al Pacino is just a click away should be a click away at his article, but the template is used instead of a filmography list per many actors' articles. The template is highly unnecessary in this regard. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Your're right Erik. But this would also make all of the director templates on wikipedia redundant also as you can click on the director and see his filmography too. Particularly for an actor of Pacino's status I don't think there's much difference. If we do delete such a template then I'd delete all the other templates for directors on wikipedia. They are intended to serve as a quick navigation but when filmographies exist it does make it seem unnecessary. But please note if you delete this template you also delete his main filmography which is also this template and it shouldn't be!!!!! SOme user like on Pierce Brosnan's article thinks its good to rmeove the full filmography which includes details of characters played with a template and this should be forbidden. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Pacino's main article should have a filmogrpahy like this not a template:
Year | Film | Role | Other notes |
---|---|---|---|
1998 | Dil Se | Preeti Nair | Winner,
Filmfare Best Debut Award. Screened at the ERA New Horizons Film Festival & the Helsinki International Film Festival |
Soldier | Preeti Singh | ||
Premante Idera | Jaanu | Telugu film ( Dulhan Dilwale Ki is the Hindi version) | |
1999 | Raja Kumarudu | Rani | Telugu film (Prince No. 1 is the Hindi version) |
Sangharsh | CBI Officer Reet Oberoi | ||
Dillagi | Rani | Guest Appearance | |
2000 | Kya Kehna | Priya Baxi | Nomination, Filmfare Best Actress Award |
Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega | Jahnvi | ||
Mission Kashmir | Sufiya Parvez | Screened at the Stockholm International Film Festival |
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think director templates are fine because the director is the main creative force behind an entire film. They should be treated in much the same way as authors, who also receive their own template. Actors and actresses are obviously different from this standard, and given the fact that they often are connected with many more individual films, the resulting template can become overly cluttered - as is the case with the template in question, in my opinion. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Director templates are good, actors templates are bad. – Fred Bradstadt 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above and ample precedent. There are a bunch of other actor templates currently listed here at TfD, and the same argumants made there apply here. PC78 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No-Bullet ( Talk • Contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. There are issues with this template, but it looks like they will be dealt with elsewhere. Mike Peel 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete (or move to user page to allow migration of desired fields). New creation; redundant to {{ Infobox dam}}. Also has variable names in Japanese. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Move to userspace (something like User:Theanphibian/sandbox) until its ready to be an English wiki template - should be in userspace until ready for distribution about the wiki. And before reestablishing it, consider instead simply making ONE template for "Infobox dam", there's no reason to have these sorted by country - I don't see why it can't be a universal template. Zue Jay ( talk) 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Information The variable names being in Japanese are the point of having it, so that the least amount of information has to be adjusted. I've already made two articles about the Japanese dams that I certainly feel are productive additions. You're welcome to migrate all the information to an English version of the box, but I'm not a fan of being made to do more work just because you want to see one less template on Wikipedia.
I thought I had sufficiently explained the purpose of it, but after reading the last two comments, I'm not so sure. This is a direct copy of ja:Template:ダム - the minimal amount is changed so that it's appearance in articles is in all English, this has already been accomplished, aside from one or two things it's in its final form. I could care less if it had to be moved to my user space as long as it could still be used in articles like Tokuyama Dam and I could still import more of them. I don't want to use the Template:Infobox dam, where it's filled with warnings on the front page that it was made by a novice infobox maker and could have problems, not to mention that someone would have to do a lot to migrate the information and would hinder further progress on these articles.
Please also have a look at the Japanese dam articles. They are absolutely beautiful, some of the best work on Wikipedia in my opinion, and to the extent of my investigation have absolutely no presence on the English Wikipedia yet. Tell me what your approaches would be, I would be more than happy to hear them.
I've even done this before, see Template:German plant for another copied template that's already being used on dozens of articles. If a different language Wikipedia has a great template and already looked up the data, why bother making an inferior one here? - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
| 堤高=140.0| 堤頂長=500.0| 堤体積=1,568,000| 総貯水容量=222,000,000| 有効貯水容量=204,000,000| 流域面積=220.0| 湛水面積=512.0
Comment If there's problems with Template:Infobox dam ("filled with warnings", "made by a novice"), why not just fix them? Unless there's info here which is specific to Japan, and which cannot be added to the current template, then this just looks redundant. -- DeLarge 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Request to close this discussion I've developed a tool to translate the variable names as well. My current plan is to make usage of the variables {{{English variable|{{{Japanese variable}}}}}}. The variable names will be in English, and everything will have changed with this by the time someone comes along to make a decision (or makes a comment at this rate). Like I said, I'm happy to collaborate with anyone on the direction of this, TfD is the wrong place. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This table was created about a year ago, as a way to create tables where the first column is a link to a country. However, it was only ever used on three pages - and I have already converted those three pages to use standard wiki table syntax and flag template syntax. I don't see the benefit in having user learn a "new" syntax specifically for these types of tables. Also, in each of the three pages I updated, the resultant wikicode was substantially smaller. — Andrwsc 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 07:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just over the top to create a navblock just because a topic has two subpages, which are clearly linked from the contra dance article. — 199.125.109.119 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 199.125.109.119 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It is the exact same thing as the golfing one which is going to be deleted so it makes sense to delete this also. michfan2123 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Mike Peel 12:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense, but doesn't really meet G2. There has been a slew of this 'ellie' related vandalism recently, I would like to know where it all comes from! — Richard Ω6 12 21:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Singu larity 06:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
A rather bizarre snapshot of one week late last year, orphaned and made redundant by the more functional {{ Top five female doubles}} and {{ Top five male doubles}}. —- DeLarge 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was invalid: user does not understand the template structure — METS501 ( talk) 20:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This template seems to be a duplicate of {{ db-reason}}. It contains the same text, except for this one doesn't give you a warning that no reason was given.. GrooveDog ( talk) 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Singu larity 06:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Requested nobody else edit [the article]" until "the aforementioned editor is satisfied"? Any legitimate use would be redundant to Template:Inuse or one of the related templates. -- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
We already have Template:Top ten male golfers, so why the need for another list that is based on some "north american" (sic) bias? ZimZalaBim talk 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they have it for tennis so I figured we could do it for golf also. And by the way I am making a top 10 for all the continents, North America is the only continent where all 10 are from the same country.
Template:Top ten European male golfers
michfan2123 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I can easily update it every week. The Top ten North American male tennis players template has been around since May and it has not been deleted. I do not see how it is any different than the golf one.
michfan2123 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Isn't this a bit of a long way for a shortcut? The point of templates is so you can make edits to a single page which will automatically update on all the other pages it's transcluded to, thereby avoiding the need to manually edit those pages. But as players come into or drop out of the top 10, you'll need to manually edit those pages anyway to add/remove the template itself. There's also the issue of original research. Do the lists exist elsewhere, or did you create them yourself using the data at owgr.com? -- DeLarge 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Only the World Rankings matter. In terms of qualifications for other tournaments, it is only the world rankings that have any bearing on a player's ability to play in a tournament.
Supertigerman
21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
As per arguments by
ZimZalaBim
talk below for
Template:Top ten north american male golfers, and violations of
WP:OR and
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the following similar templates should be deleted:
Template:Top ten Oceanic male golfers
Template:Top ten Asian male golfers
Template:Top ten African male golfers
Template:Top ten South American male golfers
Template:Top ten European male golfers
Supertigerman
21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This template is unhelpful in the encyclopedic sense. A worst-case scenario of this usage would be for an ensemble film, there would be a dozen templates at the end of an article covering each actor's filmography. The filmography for
Al Pacino is just a click away should be a click away at his article, but the template is used instead of a filmography list per many actors' articles. The template is highly unnecessary in this regard. —
Erik (
talk •
contrib) -
15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Your're right Erik. But this would also make all of the director templates on wikipedia redundant also as you can click on the director and see his filmography too. Particularly for an actor of Pacino's status I don't think there's much difference. If we do delete such a template then I'd delete all the other templates for directors on wikipedia. They are intended to serve as a quick navigation but when filmographies exist it does make it seem unnecessary. But please note if you delete this template you also delete his main filmography which is also this template and it shouldn't be!!!!! SOme user like on Pierce Brosnan's article thinks its good to rmeove the full filmography which includes details of characters played with a template and this should be forbidden. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Pacino's main article should have a filmogrpahy like this not a template:
Year | Film | Role | Other notes |
---|---|---|---|
1998 | Dil Se | Preeti Nair | Winner,
Filmfare Best Debut Award. Screened at the ERA New Horizons Film Festival & the Helsinki International Film Festival |
Soldier | Preeti Singh | ||
Premante Idera | Jaanu | Telugu film ( Dulhan Dilwale Ki is the Hindi version) | |
1999 | Raja Kumarudu | Rani | Telugu film (Prince No. 1 is the Hindi version) |
Sangharsh | CBI Officer Reet Oberoi | ||
Dillagi | Rani | Guest Appearance | |
2000 | Kya Kehna | Priya Baxi | Nomination, Filmfare Best Actress Award |
Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega | Jahnvi | ||
Mission Kashmir | Sufiya Parvez | Screened at the Stockholm International Film Festival |
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think director templates are fine because the director is the main creative force behind an entire film. They should be treated in much the same way as authors, who also receive their own template. Actors and actresses are obviously different from this standard, and given the fact that they often are connected with many more individual films, the resulting template can become overly cluttered - as is the case with the template in question, in my opinion. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Director templates are good, actors templates are bad. – Fred Bradstadt 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above and ample precedent. There are a bunch of other actor templates currently listed here at TfD, and the same argumants made there apply here. PC78 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No-Bullet ( Talk • Contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. There are issues with this template, but it looks like they will be dealt with elsewhere. Mike Peel 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete (or move to user page to allow migration of desired fields). New creation; redundant to {{ Infobox dam}}. Also has variable names in Japanese. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Move to userspace (something like User:Theanphibian/sandbox) until its ready to be an English wiki template - should be in userspace until ready for distribution about the wiki. And before reestablishing it, consider instead simply making ONE template for "Infobox dam", there's no reason to have these sorted by country - I don't see why it can't be a universal template. Zue Jay ( talk) 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Information The variable names being in Japanese are the point of having it, so that the least amount of information has to be adjusted. I've already made two articles about the Japanese dams that I certainly feel are productive additions. You're welcome to migrate all the information to an English version of the box, but I'm not a fan of being made to do more work just because you want to see one less template on Wikipedia.
I thought I had sufficiently explained the purpose of it, but after reading the last two comments, I'm not so sure. This is a direct copy of ja:Template:ダム - the minimal amount is changed so that it's appearance in articles is in all English, this has already been accomplished, aside from one or two things it's in its final form. I could care less if it had to be moved to my user space as long as it could still be used in articles like Tokuyama Dam and I could still import more of them. I don't want to use the Template:Infobox dam, where it's filled with warnings on the front page that it was made by a novice infobox maker and could have problems, not to mention that someone would have to do a lot to migrate the information and would hinder further progress on these articles.
Please also have a look at the Japanese dam articles. They are absolutely beautiful, some of the best work on Wikipedia in my opinion, and to the extent of my investigation have absolutely no presence on the English Wikipedia yet. Tell me what your approaches would be, I would be more than happy to hear them.
I've even done this before, see Template:German plant for another copied template that's already being used on dozens of articles. If a different language Wikipedia has a great template and already looked up the data, why bother making an inferior one here? - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
| 堤高=140.0| 堤頂長=500.0| 堤体積=1,568,000| 総貯水容量=222,000,000| 有効貯水容量=204,000,000| 流域面積=220.0| 湛水面積=512.0
Comment If there's problems with Template:Infobox dam ("filled with warnings", "made by a novice"), why not just fix them? Unless there's info here which is specific to Japan, and which cannot be added to the current template, then this just looks redundant. -- DeLarge 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Request to close this discussion I've developed a tool to translate the variable names as well. My current plan is to make usage of the variables {{{English variable|{{{Japanese variable}}}}}}. The variable names will be in English, and everything will have changed with this by the time someone comes along to make a decision (or makes a comment at this rate). Like I said, I'm happy to collaborate with anyone on the direction of this, TfD is the wrong place. - Theanphibian ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This table was created about a year ago, as a way to create tables where the first column is a link to a country. However, it was only ever used on three pages - and I have already converted those three pages to use standard wiki table syntax and flag template syntax. I don't see the benefit in having user learn a "new" syntax specifically for these types of tables. Also, in each of the three pages I updated, the resultant wikicode was substantially smaller. — Andrwsc 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 07:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just over the top to create a navblock just because a topic has two subpages, which are clearly linked from the contra dance article. — 199.125.109.119 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 199.125.109.119 04:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It is the exact same thing as the golfing one which is going to be deleted so it makes sense to delete this also. michfan2123 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)