June 2
Template:3stoogesfeaturefilms
- 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 delete. Wizardman 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Per prior consensus on creating templates for an actor's filmography. — Lugnuts ( talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per prior consensus, info on which actors were in which film can be given in the infobox for each film, adding such a box to the article on the actor adds nothing (and may clutter up the navbox section unecessarily). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:26, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per prior discussion. Mr mark taylor ( talk) 21:56, 4 June 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.
Template:Eleanor Powell
- 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. We have a Category:Film actor templates Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Per prior consensus on creating templates for an actor's filmography. — Lugnuts ( talk) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per prior consensus, info on which actors were in which film can be given in the infobox for each film, adding such a box to the article on the actor adds nothing (and may clutter up the navbox section unecessarily). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:26, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
- Keep unless the prohibition on "Films by actor" categories is lifted. I don't acknowledge "prior consensus" as a binding rationale per WP:CCC. 23skidoo ( talk) 14:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Eleanor Powell was a major star of musicals, and having a navbox devoted to her is very helpful. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- So are hundreds of other actors. Imagine having a template for them attached to every film they appeared in. Some film articles will have half of their content dedicated to templates. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:14, 13 June 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 Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Really not seeing the purpose to this template. Unused and not in current warning scheme. MBisanz talk 07:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Since these templates are subst'ed, it's impossible to know if they are in use or not. Older warning templates have generally been kept as an alternative to the mainstream ones. I'm not sure if I personally would use such a template, but Radiant's rationale on the talk page seems pretty reasonable "Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek. But way too many people resort to spurious accusations of e.g. vandalism whenever in a dispute. >Radiant< 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" -- Ned Scott 06:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Aside from being currently unused, it links the recipient to WP:DICK, which is itself pretty uncivil and generally discouraged. We have better warning templates for this purpose. Terraxos ( talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy‑ melon 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is an important way to warn people. Like Ned Scott said, this template is subst:ed so we have no way of knowing if its actually used. Also to Terraxos, if Wikipedia made this template and included WP:DICK, they obviously knew that less civil people would understand Don't be a Dick. DA PIE EATER ( talk) 01:20, 3 June 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.
Template:Football League Championship play-off Finals
Decision was Delete
|
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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete Redundant, orphaned template, which is an unnecessary replication of
Template:Football League Championship playoff finals.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk) 10:57, 2 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
Template:WP Trains fair use
Decision was delete
|
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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Misleading template, fails to meet WP:NFCC criteria and deceives editors into believing the image is fairuse complaint when it is not. MBisanz talk 08:36, 2 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
Template:FoxUSA
- 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 delete — Scien tizzle 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please delete. Several templates created by a user which then proceeded to add them on 300+ TV station templates replacing an already existing scheme without first raising consensus. All the additions were rollbacked or undone, and the templates are now unused. The reversion and nomination were discussed on the relevant wijiproject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Massive_template_change, where is was agreed that they can be deleted.
These templates also go in the deletion bundle:
- Template:NPRUSA
- Template:PBSUSA
- Template:MNTVUSA
- Template:CWUSA
- Template:NBCUSA
- Template:CBSUSA
- Template:ABCUSA
— Enric Naval ( talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded and redundant to several categories already listed within the templates, and there was no consenus or need for them. Nate • ( chatter) 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I figured that they were redundant but I'm an obsessive categorizer. :) But yes. Redundant. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 13:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Nice idea, but redundant. Mr mark taylor ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 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.
Template:Infobox personal
- 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 Delete Lenticel ( talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Template:Infobox Person, only with this one an image seems required, and there's fewer spaces, making this an inferior and not very useful version. Wizardman 02:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Seems this was created by a user for his and his friends' user pages. I've just replaced all the examples of this used in the mainspace, and I'm going to pre-emptively delete so it doesn't get used anymore. -- Step hen 04:09, 2 June 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.
June 2
Template:3stoogesfeaturefilms
- 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 delete. Wizardman 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Per prior consensus on creating templates for an actor's filmography. — Lugnuts ( talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per prior consensus, info on which actors were in which film can be given in the infobox for each film, adding such a box to the article on the actor adds nothing (and may clutter up the navbox section unecessarily). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:26, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per prior discussion. Mr mark taylor ( talk) 21:56, 4 June 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.
Template:Eleanor Powell
- 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. We have a Category:Film actor templates Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Per prior consensus on creating templates for an actor's filmography. — Lugnuts ( talk) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per prior consensus, info on which actors were in which film can be given in the infobox for each film, adding such a box to the article on the actor adds nothing (and may clutter up the navbox section unecessarily). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 06:26, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
- Keep unless the prohibition on "Films by actor" categories is lifted. I don't acknowledge "prior consensus" as a binding rationale per WP:CCC. 23skidoo ( talk) 14:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Eleanor Powell was a major star of musicals, and having a navbox devoted to her is very helpful. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- So are hundreds of other actors. Imagine having a template for them attached to every film they appeared in. Some film articles will have half of their content dedicated to templates. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:14, 13 June 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 Woohookitty Woohoo! 11:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Really not seeing the purpose to this template. Unused and not in current warning scheme. MBisanz talk 07:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Since these templates are subst'ed, it's impossible to know if they are in use or not. Older warning templates have generally been kept as an alternative to the mainstream ones. I'm not sure if I personally would use such a template, but Radiant's rationale on the talk page seems pretty reasonable "Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek. But way too many people resort to spurious accusations of e.g. vandalism whenever in a dispute. >Radiant< 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" -- Ned Scott 06:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Aside from being currently unused, it links the recipient to WP:DICK, which is itself pretty uncivil and generally discouraged. We have better warning templates for this purpose. Terraxos ( talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy‑ melon 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is an important way to warn people. Like Ned Scott said, this template is subst:ed so we have no way of knowing if its actually used. Also to Terraxos, if Wikipedia made this template and included WP:DICK, they obviously knew that less civil people would understand Don't be a Dick. DA PIE EATER ( talk) 01:20, 3 June 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.
Template:Football League Championship play-off Finals
Decision was Delete
|
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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete Redundant, orphaned template, which is an unnecessary replication of
Template:Football League Championship playoff finals.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk) 10:57, 2 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
Template:WP Trains fair use
Decision was delete
|
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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Misleading template, fails to meet WP:NFCC criteria and deceives editors into believing the image is fairuse complaint when it is not. MBisanz talk 08:36, 2 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
Template:FoxUSA
- 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 delete — Scien tizzle 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please delete. Several templates created by a user which then proceeded to add them on 300+ TV station templates replacing an already existing scheme without first raising consensus. All the additions were rollbacked or undone, and the templates are now unused. The reversion and nomination were discussed on the relevant wijiproject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Massive_template_change, where is was agreed that they can be deleted.
These templates also go in the deletion bundle:
- Template:NPRUSA
- Template:PBSUSA
- Template:MNTVUSA
- Template:CWUSA
- Template:NBCUSA
- Template:CBSUSA
- Template:ABCUSA
— Enric Naval ( talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded and redundant to several categories already listed within the templates, and there was no consenus or need for them. Nate • ( chatter) 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I figured that they were redundant but I'm an obsessive categorizer. :) But yes. Redundant. -- Woohookitty Woohoo! 13:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Nice idea, but redundant. Mr mark taylor ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 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.
Template:Infobox personal
- 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 Delete Lenticel ( talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of Template:Infobox Person, only with this one an image seems required, and there's fewer spaces, making this an inferior and not very useful version. Wizardman 02:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Seems this was created by a user for his and his friends' user pages. I've just replaced all the examples of this used in the mainspace, and I'm going to pre-emptively delete so it doesn't get used anymore. -- Step hen 04:09, 2 June 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.