Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30[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 discussion was Delete by Zscout370, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vague Time[edit]

Template:Vague Time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion, redundant to {{vague}} and {{when}} except it doesn't correspond with any guidelines.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps •HELP)} 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It corrosponds to an essay and MOS. {{coatrack}} corrosponds to an essay too.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The purported problem is covered well enough by {{when}}. I can't see the value of plastering the vague time template over the top of an article or section when specific instances of vagueness about time are what should be targeted. This template allows for a lazy editing style of drive-by tagging without targeting or, better yet, correcting the problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems that {{vague}} and/or {{when}} would be a better choice to use in all circumstances. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this template does reference a valid cleanup concern, it's far better served by {{when}} on the individual problem phrases. I agree with Binksternet that this just encourages unhelpful drive-by tagging without really assisting in solving the problem. ~ mazca ^t|c 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More template overkill. Garion96 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (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:Australian Theme Parks[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 discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Theme Parks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unuseful and as an Amusement parks in Australia category and Water parks in Australia category exists, this template does is not needed. Additionally, both amusement parks and water parks are listed here (and at one stage open air museums were, too) and these do not fall under the umbrella of "theme park". If generic themed amusement parks and water parks were disincluded from the template, it would be far too small and not meet the notability guidelines. As such, this should be deleted. VG Editor (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconvinced by this argument for a template that is used on many articles. I do think this should be discussed elsewhere like on a WikiProject, possibly the Australia Project. This discussion here will not attract much attention. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The aim of templates like this is to aid navigation. Not everybody knows about categories, and this offers an easy way to travel between linked topics that are likely to be of interest to the reader. Water parks are a type of amusement park and are therefore valid entries (especially in the Australian climate). I don't understand why you believe "generic themed amusement parks" should not be included in this template either - they are theme parks, and that's the only criterion for inclusion in the template? Thanks, Somno (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2009 (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:Mewvi[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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mewvi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was designed to help solicit the website Mewvi, which is not an appropriate EL for articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable website that linking too is neither appropriate, nor necessary. No need for a template to assist in making bad links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only are these links unnecessary but creating a template for them adds insult to injury. Moment Deuterium (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons cited above. Aren't templates supposed to have a significant connection to an article's subject matter? How would this qualify? LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template gives the sense that a movie trailer is always a suitable external link for a movie article. Trailers as links should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Being in the form of a template lends the air of official Wikipedia sanction to http://www.mewvi.com/ as the standard trailer site. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2009 (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.