Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 18

< November 17	November 19 >

November 18[edit]

Template:Voice Actors[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Voice Actors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Don't see what useful purpose this template serves other than cruft. KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are far too many voice actors for a navigation template to be useful. Category:Voice actors has 136 pages, plus over 500 more in subcategories. The selection of actors and classification scheme used in this template are probably original research. --RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a huge subject and not one easily conveyed through the medium of navbox. treelo _radda 00:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad idea for a template, for many reasons. Robofish (talk) 19:15, 21 November 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:External Links[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 Speedy deleted as a test page. Template was made by a very new user who apparently did not quite get how templates work. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Don't see what use this template serves. It looks like a bit of experimentation rather than something useful to Wikipedia. Biker Biker (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the creator appears to explain expansion plans for it. All it does now is output two words of bold text, which could be typed more easily than using a template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:33, 18 November 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:Werdnabot[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 (withdrawn by nominator) David Göthberg (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This bot no longer is in use, according to its talkpage (User talk:Werdnabot). Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It might be better to deprecate this first, both to see if anyone wants to "adopt" the bot and fix it, and to allow some time for alternative archiving to be set up for the 250+ talk pages that this template is used on. --RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The bot is no longer active, but the template is used on 284 pages. So don't delete the template, instead let's use it to inform the people that is using it that Werdnabot is no longer running. So I have just updated the text of the template to say "Werdnabot is no longer running" and added a link to where Werdna himself says that. --David Göthberg (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Awesome idea. I would withdraw this deletion nomination, but I'm not sure how to. You can mark it as "withdrawn by nominator." Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep warning is useful for those pages using this archiver, to switch to another one, and since from the talk page, it's possible this bot may go back online. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 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:New unreviewed article[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 per WP:SNOW. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New unreviewed article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't need a large banner at the top of the page to state that an article is new, and marking pages that have not been reviewed is what the patrol log is for. G W… 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It isn't just for us, it's for those looking up that information too to know. Also it gives helpful advice on a user and a new article.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Skater. WuhWuzDat 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Special:NewPages only goes back 30 days, and new articles could drop off that list without being patrolled or marked as patrolled under the assumption that someone watching the category will look it over. The template and its associated categories make it easy to tell if an article has been reviewed by others, for people who check the categories and also for people who just happen to come across the article from some other point of entry. Not everyone who would review a new article also patrols new pages. Reach Out to the Truth 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, discuss use or future of this template someplace other than TfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Reach Out to the Truth makes some good points. Also, this template is used by the Article wizard 2.0, which I don't think we should be breaking without a broader discussion. (Note: I've posted a notification about this TfD at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard 2.0.) --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a forecast for SNOW. Helpful to readers, editors, and article creators, and worth the screen real estate. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it may seem to be stating the obvious for those of us who've been around a while, it's good for the new comers. ♠The Ace of Spades ^♣♥_♦ 01:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have created a js tool that will make removing this tag easier, and I think this tag is a way of fighting vandalism. New users who vandalism pages often use the Article wizard, which uses this tag. If anyone is interested in the tool, let me know. Btilm 01:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep I don't even see any attempt to discuss this before coming here to have it deleted. Not everybody uses or cares about the "patrol log," I certainly don't use it and never have. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Seems a practical template, with an important purpose involving/informing the broader community who don't "New page patrol".--Hu12 (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow performing a valid function; articles can languish unreviewed for years. Josh Parris 07:10, 19 November 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:Indiana Hoosiers 2006 men's basketball roster[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indiana Hoosiers 2006 men's basketball roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template showing a non-notable roster for a college basketball team. RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. --146.203.134.50 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, and nowhere to put it. Robofish (talk) 19:14, 21 November 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:The Powerpuff Girls[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Powerpuff Girls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Still partially redundant as it probably shouldn't be doing double duty for a spinoff which isn't related by enough to share a template. Aside from that, there is the issue of only having four functional links, all of which are readily relinked from each article. treelo _radda 12:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't seem to be redundant to any other template, and has enough valid article links for a navbox. I don't see any reason why the original show and the spin-off can't be included in the same template. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant to all three articles in the navbox being well interlinked, there's little point in a navbox which offers no benefit to a reader which they can't already get on the same article. The spinoff could use its own navbox template or be mentioned as a spinoff here but not together, they're too disparate. treelo _radda 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is my lack of familiarity with the particulars of these shows, but they don't seem so disparate to me that they can't share a navbox. Anyhow, I just wanted to note that I updated the TfD notice on the template to use {{Tfd}} instead of {{Tfd-inline}}, since this is a non-inline template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems acceptable as a navbox to me. Even without the spinoff links, there might just be enough for a template (though it's borderline). Robofish (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just four links is borderline but I've seen navboxes get deleted for more links but equally needless navigation. treelo _radda 20:25, 21 November 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:British Film Institute name[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Film Institute name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems somewhat pointless and is currently unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk and no edits since it was created in December 2008. All it does is produce three words that could be typed in plain text. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and I agree, pretty pointless. Robofish (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - takes more characters to use than it inserts, and doesn't even introduce a link. Utterly pointless. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 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:2 cell table row[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2 cell table row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 19:10, 21 November 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:Biasutti skin color map[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biasutti skin color map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, and redundant to the better image File:Map of skin hue equi3.png. Robofish (talk) 19:09, 21 November 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.