Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 24 December 26 >

December 25[edit]

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles[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 debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this template is empty. 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' original them is 0. — AaMcaa (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting first edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:STLmedia[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 debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:STLmedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:PHLmedia[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PHLmedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting first edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Redundancies abound. KansasCity (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was not directed to this discussion. It just happened to be next to the one above to which I was directed. Call it serendipity. - Dravecky (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:MBHighways[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 debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MBHighways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is a red link farm, only few articles exist. Seeing that no article on this has been made in a while, this thing needs to go. Mitch32contribs 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. This template is huge, and WP:FA will never accept any article that has it. WP:GA might not either. The categories and lists system is much preferred across Wikipedia. WP:USRD (the United States road project) deleted its templates a while back at debates such as those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents#State highway system templates. CRWP needs to delete its templates, among other things, in order to be successful project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I agree with Rschen7754. The GA and FA projects probably wouldn't pass articles with such a large template on them. The fact that it is a red link farm doesn't bother me; what bothers me is that this template has existed for some time, and those red links were never filled in. It's time to let go of the template. A category also works much better. --Son (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rschen7754  — master sonT - C 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Red Link Farm? I don't see any red links on there. Also, there is stuff you can do with infoboxes that you can't do with categories. It's easier for the users. Also, where does it say that large templates automatically fail FA/GA? You can make it hidden by default and make it pop out if you need it you know. ViperSnake151 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its been an ongoing war - the original version of this was a redlink farm.Mitch32contribs 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Permalink is here. --Phirazo 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. while the template was huge and ugly, that is a reason to fix it, not a valid reason for deletion. It has been cleaded up in the meantime (although I suggest all secondary road links go). Also, if this gets deleted, please don't consider it as a precedent for other better maintained provincial road navboxes. --Qyd (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and I disagree. --Qyd (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did people say that lists and categories are better when we were having similar TFDs in the US? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, don't care. But it sounds extreme. I suppose this is not the right place to discuss that. --Qyd (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I would consider creating 20 different "small" templates for browsing extreme. That is definitely how it is viewed at WP:USRD, which has been more successful than WP:CRWP. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:Jay email[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 debate was delete per creator's request. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jay email (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is unencyclopedic, and will not be used within the context of the encyclopedia. The template namespace doesn't exist for the convenience of an editor. This was moved to the userspace by Edmundwoods (talk · contribs), but was moved back by Whjayg (talk · contribs). — Aecis·(away) talk 17:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Template:Jay Archive box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to this discussion as it has the same issue. ~ PaulC/T+ 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Maayan[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 debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Doesn't seem to be useful in any way. It's supposed to be a nav template, but it is only used on one article. Most of the people and groups mentioned there are not linked, because they don't have articles, and aren't notable (some of the articles were deleted as NN). Putting the template on existing articles about people who are mentioned there wouldn't be useful either, as they are pretty loosely related. — Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not a particularly useful template. Some of these articles don't even mention how they're linked to Maayan; others are only linked pretty loosely. If it's necessary to connect these articles together, the better way to do it would be with a category. Terraxos (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

WB & UPN 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 debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is obsolete. It has been since the UPN-WB to CW merger. Please delete. Thanks. MaidService (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these are the only edits of MaidService (talk · contribs), and ThaCleaningLady (talk · contribs) proceeded to redirect all of the templates to their CW counterparts.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's only edits have been to redirect these templates to the corresponding CW templates and to conduct this TFD and related CFDs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:MaidService. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the sock puppetry page has been archived and confirmed please see instead Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MaidService. Thank you. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Swiss town/upd[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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Swiss town/upd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merry Christmas! Here's an orphan infobox template that, for some inexplicable reason, is 338 kb. — BD2412 T 04:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wow. That is a whole lotta code. Orphaned and of questionable usefulness in this form. JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this was an attempt to create an "updater" template that could be rolled out extremely quickly when changes are made to the neighboring_municipalities parameter (whether it be the style of presentation or the actual content). Each town could be updated by simply changing the infobox used in the article to subst:Infobox Swiss town/upd. Very good idea, in my opinion. --- RockMFR 06:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but it is unused in practise, and is about ten times larger than Wikipedia's recommended page limit. There must be a more efficient way to do this. BD2412 T 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unneeded. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clever, but this could be done so much easier with a bot or elbow grease. Happy‑melon 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - echoing Happy Melon as well. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was used in the last update by bot and can serve as a sample template for future updates. If it's considered too long, the neighboring municipalities can be cut as they are now in the article. -- User:Docu
    • Was it used by a bot in a way that could not be accomplished in a different namespace (e.g. Wikipedia wikiproject space)? BD2412 T 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • RockMFR explained in his post on Dec 25 how it was used. It doesn't matter which namespace it's in, but as it relates to Infobox Swiss town, it should be fine where it is, as is Template:Infobox Swiss town/testcases -- User:Docu
  • Keep. No good reason has been given for deletion. Its usefulness has been shown. Size is not a good reason for deletion. Neither is a subjective measurement of how easy a bot could make such updates. --- RockMFR 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it take more of the Wikipedia servers' elbow grease to transclude larger templates? This is, after all, hundreds of kilobytes (of which the end user only sees a minute fraction), so I think in this case that size does matter. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't worry about performance. 3 kb has been wasted on this discussion, and many more are being wasted on things much less useful. You're free to collaborate on a more efficient method, but do not delete until this is completely useless. –Pomte 10:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The footnote at the bottom of that page would seem to indicate otherwise, with something of this size. BD2412 T 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to the addendum, the example of images involves images being viewed multiple times. This template is used only once in a very long while, and sparingly. Furthermore, this is not a client-side issue. –Pomte 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_25&oldid=1083551519"