Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

June 27, 2006

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 superseeded -- Drini 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAC

Delete per nom. The template appears to have been superseded by {{PCP}} and the project has been redirected to Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per thJC --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 19:57, 27 June 2006 (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 page.

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 Replaced by a See also: section is better. Inclusion on this template is completely subjective -- Drini 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MidnightMovies

Template:MidnightMovies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is not encyclopedic as it gives a canonical treatment to a subject that is continually evolving (that is, films that are considered midnight movies). Jonathan F 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. outright POV. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the template is extremely useful. (Ibaranoff24 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep - don't delete!! (152.163.100.202 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep -edit it if you want to add more midnight movies but don't delete it, check out the reference Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream, which cites 6 movies and several directors. Andman8 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the template is extremely useful is an overstatement IMO. The navigational options it offers seem to be based entirely on Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream, a documentary. As such, a See also: Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream would be more fitting. As an informational resource, the template is also of limited value since it provides only a retrospective view on an ongoing tradition.

In response to Andman8's vote, the problem is not inclusiveness or lack thereof. A template does not befit this subject as midnight movies change over time, as do the venues that are notable for playing them. I've opined on your reference above. --Jonathan F 06:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment - As I see it, the films listed are the films generally regarded as having helped started the midnight movies phenomenon and of being classics of this type of film. (Ibaranoff24 15:33, 28 June 2006 (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 page.

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 While the effort on coding the "folding" was loable, it should be noted that it doens't work on skins other than monobook. It's a excessively tall template, and thus is better replaced witha category. -- Drini 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current UK MP

Strong Keep, very useful for navigation. Philip Stevens 07:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't possibly work, way too big. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps spliting into different parties would be better. Afonso Silva 09:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - far too large: with over 600 crosslinks, it swamps the pages where it appears. There is some discussion on the talk page about breaking it up, perhaps by regions. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would a category be better? Tim Ivorson 2006-06-27
- Like Category:Current British MPs (or a list like MPs elected in the UK general election, 2005)? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at the moment mps are sorted and hidden by party and the default size is pretty manageable. I don't find it that overwhealming Ydam 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given whats been said about its apperance in other skins (and it does look huge fully expanded) it's far too big at the moment. Although I would fully support splitting it up somehow. It does seem a useful template Ydam 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Template:Popes, they are only hidden in some skins. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't realise that when I created it. Philip Stevens 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom once all pages linked to on the template are categorised per Tim Ivorson. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and reorganize The american templates have the parties combined. This jsut needs to be organized by geography rather than party. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Template:Current U.S. Senators? That has approximately 1/6 of the number of entries. There is no equivalent for members of the House of Representatives, as far as I can see. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hard to understand and not very useful. Category would be good. Raoul2 22:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for navigation. Computerjoe 's talk 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per larsinio. 86.139.107.184 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be scaled down in size, otherwise delete it. RFerreira 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only acceptable alternative is two links: to Category:Current British MPs and MPs elected in the UK general election, 2005 --Henrygb 08:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Causes every MP to be linked to every other MP. This is a nightmare when using 'What links here' or 'Related Changes'. Saga City 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TheJC --JimmyTheWig 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Saga City. It is a good idea but would be far too big for an article, would be too confusing to work with (would it be by surname, full name, first name?). Could be done by party but this full box is too much doktorb _words^deeds 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems good work to me.--Aldux 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a good idea, but it would be far too large. --EddieBernard 18:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too large to be useful. Possibly replace with individual templates for each party, but the Labour and Conservative templates would still be hude. Timrollpickering 19:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too long to be useful. It would be better to have a "See also" link to a list on a separate page JRawle (Talk) 13:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too big, not in usual wikipedia style for template. Abcdefghijklm 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the names are hidden if you don't want them, it's not too cumbersome. The Speaker should be under others, though; I'll move him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownlee (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too big to be useful. OCNative 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories (perhaps per party) would be better. Eludium-q36 09:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nice idea but just too big to be usefull. Galloglass 12.35, 7 July 2006
I know this probably won't work, but please don't delete my template, it took me so long to write. Philip Stevens 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the work that went into it - it could be moved to a user subpage, User:Philip Stevens/Current UK MP, say, or perhaps as the start of a new article, List of current UK MPs (simple)? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if the list had been hidden in all skins, I would have gone the other way, but fully expanded it is simply too big. A split, either into political parties or geography, would make it managable. Railwayman 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it could be shaved down, I believe it is justified and informative. -- Alan Davidson 07:31, 8 July 2006 (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 page.

Strong Keep It's very useful. There are only about 650 MPs at any one time and it is of public interest to list them. Not very hard to do as all the MPs have articles on them anyhow. Matthewfelgate 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 kept -- Drini 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blue Collar Comedy

Template:Blue Collar Comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) In my understanding, this kind of template is meant to link a lot of pages that are similar, sort of like "see also" links, but in a uniform, easy-to-copy template. This is like that, but for a total of six pages. What's more, all the pages are prominently linked on the pages themselves as well. This isn't needed. Jesuschex 02:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep useful, more organized than a see also section. More navigatable than a category. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally useless. (Ibaranoff24 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as redundant. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite useful, per larsinio -- Diehard2k5 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Larsinio. It would also be a good idea to add the other cast members to the template as more articles are made for them. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Some find it useful--Brownlee 12:18, 6 July 2006 (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 page.