(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 July 14)
- 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. Mike Peel 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Redundant template since Template:NHL Team was modified to replace it. — NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, nobody is using it. davidwr ( talk) 23:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Shalom Hello 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused. Hydrogen Iodide 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:56, 20 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-delete3 as a test page. Sala Skan 13:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not really a template, its just like a warning on a users talk page. Rlest 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- speedy delete - test page, housecleaning. {{ b1}} and {{ b2}} as well. The Evil Spartan 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Should be used in the user's userspace, rather than clogging the template space. Sebi [ talk 06:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep now that they redirect to Template:Uw-delete3 etc. WODUP 02:37, 16 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to {{ uw-ad3}} as an obvious duplicate page. Sala Skan ( Review me) 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Template is an unnecessary duplicate of Template:uw-spam3. Rlest 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would say delete and redirect to {{ spam3}}. The two are nearly identical; they can be fused without any significant problems. The Evil Spartan 20:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{ uw-advert3}}. There is a minor difference between spam links and advertising. Gracenotes T § 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- creator's comment: I created the "advert" series (before all this uw- stuff came along) for the reason outlined by Gracenotes. If the two series were to be fused it might make things easier. I think there's also an advert2 and advert4. yandman 16:14, 15 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was deleted by template's creator. IronGargoyle 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a useless template, you cannot upload images to Wikipedia under the same name and there is the regular templates such as {{ uw-vandalism1}}.. Rlest 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, the uploader's been around since Feb 2002. Ahem, I mean, rewrite to be less specific - just have it be a template warning against uploading over another image period. The Evil Spartan 20:11, 14 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as housekeeping. matt br 10:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Unused template for a defunct WikiProject. — PC78 13:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete G6. Unused template that was left over from a deleted wikiproject. -- Hdt83 Chat 06:25, 15 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary navbox, especially considering that 2/3 of the classified venues are currently redlinks. A classic case of creating a template for the sake of creating a template. fuzzy510 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Listify I'm a little uncomfortable with so many redlinks in a template, per nom, but the information should not be altogether lost. Shalom Hello 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - the template encourages creation of the missing articles, and, once they are created, will assist in navigation. -- B 13:20, 17 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary navbox, especially considering that 75% of the classified venues are currently redlinks. fuzzy510 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but then again, I created it! Seriously, I was hoping someone with more knowledge of these parks could supply some more information, especially if they saw such a template at the bottom of the
Atlantic Sun Conference page. To my knowledge, the only other baseball conference currently with such a template is the ACC, which admittedly is complete. So if I need to wait until more of the venues have entries themselves, I guess I can do that. But, the ACC Field Hockey template has roughly 66% of its classified venues currently up as redlinks -- and it's been around since Nov 26 of last year. My A-Sun Baseball template is up for 6 days and it's nominated for deletion. What gives?
Naytchrboy
05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's an ACC field hockey venue template? Oh dear. Be back in a second..... -- fuzzy510 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this is actually a useful nav template, and could conceivably be used by somebody (the redlinks are future articles). The Evil Spartan 20:13, 14 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was delete. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm moderately okay with these templates for directors, I'm fairly certain there's a precadent for them being deleted if the subject is just an actor. After all, the template is redundant with Nicole Kidman#Filmography, which covers this much better. — EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - hard to say, with this, but Nicole Kidman is not that prolific. -- Haemo 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. EVula is right, there's precedent: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 11#Template:Matthew McConaughey, in which a whole bunch of these templates were deleted. Gracenotes T § 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I see no harm in keeping and only see benefit in this instance. —
Ian Lee (
Talk)
21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The only possible harm in this template is consistency. Take a look at Ocean's Eleven (2001 film): suppose we have a template for every major actor or actress. At the bottom of that page would be {{George Clooney films}}, {{Brad Pitt films}}, {{Matt Damon films}}, {{Andy Garcia films}}, {{Julia Roberts films}}, {{Bernie Mac films}}, {{Elliot Gould films}}, {{Carl Reiner films}}, and possibly others. Given the extensive acting history of these actors/actresses, navigation could take up a screen or two at the bottom. There seems to be no reason why such a template should be kept for Nicole Kidman. (Note: we do have director templates, since rarely does one film have more than one director, same as we have author templates.) Gracenotes T § 02:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delte and any other actor templates we have. This is the sort of thing lists are for. DGG ( talk) 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. A complete set of these is impractical, per Gracenotes and the function is better served by a list, per DGG. — mholland (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Perhaps this template should be ressurected in 30 years or so. Perhaps not. Chris Buckey 19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete How many templates will we have at the bottom of each film article if we do one for each actor? The director is the craftsman of the film...the actor just appears in it. .... 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete these templates do seem useful, but they aren't viable for use in articles; if we make a template for every famous actor, most articles on movies will get far too long. Sala Skan ( Review me) 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per precedent. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:55, 20 July 2007 (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.
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 July 14)
- 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. Mike Peel 20:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Redundant template since Template:NHL Team was modified to replace it. — NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, nobody is using it. davidwr ( talk) 23:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Shalom Hello 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused. Hydrogen Iodide 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:56, 20 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-delete3 as a test page. Sala Skan 13:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not really a template, its just like a warning on a users talk page. Rlest 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- speedy delete - test page, housecleaning. {{ b1}} and {{ b2}} as well. The Evil Spartan 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Should be used in the user's userspace, rather than clogging the template space. Sebi [ talk 06:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep now that they redirect to Template:Uw-delete3 etc. WODUP 02:37, 16 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to {{ uw-ad3}} as an obvious duplicate page. Sala Skan ( Review me) 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Template is an unnecessary duplicate of Template:uw-spam3. Rlest 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would say delete and redirect to {{ spam3}}. The two are nearly identical; they can be fused without any significant problems. The Evil Spartan 20:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{ uw-advert3}}. There is a minor difference between spam links and advertising. Gracenotes T § 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- creator's comment: I created the "advert" series (before all this uw- stuff came along) for the reason outlined by Gracenotes. If the two series were to be fused it might make things easier. I think there's also an advert2 and advert4. yandman 16:14, 15 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was deleted by template's creator. IronGargoyle 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a useless template, you cannot upload images to Wikipedia under the same name and there is the regular templates such as {{ uw-vandalism1}}.. Rlest 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, the uploader's been around since Feb 2002. Ahem, I mean, rewrite to be less specific - just have it be a template warning against uploading over another image period. The Evil Spartan 20:11, 14 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as housekeeping. matt br 10:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Unused template for a defunct WikiProject. — PC78 13:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete G6. Unused template that was left over from a deleted wikiproject. -- Hdt83 Chat 06:25, 15 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary navbox, especially considering that 2/3 of the classified venues are currently redlinks. A classic case of creating a template for the sake of creating a template. fuzzy510 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Listify I'm a little uncomfortable with so many redlinks in a template, per nom, but the information should not be altogether lost. Shalom Hello 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - the template encourages creation of the missing articles, and, once they are created, will assist in navigation. -- B 13:20, 17 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary navbox, especially considering that 75% of the classified venues are currently redlinks. fuzzy510 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but then again, I created it! Seriously, I was hoping someone with more knowledge of these parks could supply some more information, especially if they saw such a template at the bottom of the
Atlantic Sun Conference page. To my knowledge, the only other baseball conference currently with such a template is the ACC, which admittedly is complete. So if I need to wait until more of the venues have entries themselves, I guess I can do that. But, the ACC Field Hockey template has roughly 66% of its classified venues currently up as redlinks -- and it's been around since Nov 26 of last year. My A-Sun Baseball template is up for 6 days and it's nominated for deletion. What gives?
Naytchrboy
05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's an ACC field hockey venue template? Oh dear. Be back in a second..... -- fuzzy510 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this is actually a useful nav template, and could conceivably be used by somebody (the redlinks are future articles). The Evil Spartan 20:13, 14 July 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was delete. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm moderately okay with these templates for directors, I'm fairly certain there's a precadent for them being deleted if the subject is just an actor. After all, the template is redundant with Nicole Kidman#Filmography, which covers this much better. — EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - hard to say, with this, but Nicole Kidman is not that prolific. -- Haemo 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. EVula is right, there's precedent: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 11#Template:Matthew McConaughey, in which a whole bunch of these templates were deleted. Gracenotes T § 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I see no harm in keeping and only see benefit in this instance. —
Ian Lee (
Talk)
21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The only possible harm in this template is consistency. Take a look at Ocean's Eleven (2001 film): suppose we have a template for every major actor or actress. At the bottom of that page would be {{George Clooney films}}, {{Brad Pitt films}}, {{Matt Damon films}}, {{Andy Garcia films}}, {{Julia Roberts films}}, {{Bernie Mac films}}, {{Elliot Gould films}}, {{Carl Reiner films}}, and possibly others. Given the extensive acting history of these actors/actresses, navigation could take up a screen or two at the bottom. There seems to be no reason why such a template should be kept for Nicole Kidman. (Note: we do have director templates, since rarely does one film have more than one director, same as we have author templates.) Gracenotes T § 02:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delte and any other actor templates we have. This is the sort of thing lists are for. DGG ( talk) 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. A complete set of these is impractical, per Gracenotes and the function is better served by a list, per DGG. — mholland (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Perhaps this template should be ressurected in 30 years or so. Perhaps not. Chris Buckey 19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete How many templates will we have at the bottom of each film article if we do one for each actor? The director is the craftsman of the film...the actor just appears in it. .... 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete these templates do seem useful, but they aren't viable for use in articles; if we make a template for every famous actor, most articles on movies will get far too long. Sala Skan ( Review me) 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per precedent. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 00:55, 20 July 2007 (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.