Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plastikspork (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 19 November 2015 (→‎Template:Atari game lists by platform: Closed as delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

Template:Verstandig Broadcasting

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Essentially a G7 result. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template for company that doesn't have an article. In fact one of the linked articles doesn't mention the owner. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created when the company had stations in multiple markets. Now they have just the four in the Hagerstown, Maryland market. As the creator of this template, I have no objections to it being deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:55, 10 November 2015 (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).

Template:RuneSoft

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atari game lists by platform

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).

The result of the discussion was delete, redundant to another navigation box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too broad for a template: Atari platforms. Is rarely used, and there are categories for the respective lists of games released on platforms. Soetermans. T / C 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanding on my reasons why: the template isn't used much, not even on the links provided by the template. Better yet, there's {{Video game lists by platform}}, which lists every list of video game release per platform, making a line by one company redundant. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this broad? It list all the game list articles for each Atari game system. Being way too broad is Template:Video game lists by platform. Why is that being used in these articles, instead of the one that just list the relevant information? Why have that massive list of unrelated things, instead of focusing only on those in the Atari family? Dream Focus 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, @Dream Focus:, I was in a bit of rush with nominating it, I've expanded on my rationale. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per substantial duplication with Template:Video game lists by platform. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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).

Template:Blaby Computer Games series

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed are two video game articles developed by template's subject, platforms is too broad and fails WP:NAVBOX, people are redlinked and probably won't be created anytime soon. Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Narrow breadth covered fine in the prose and in See also sections as needed. czar 18:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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).

Template:Legazpi TV

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No objections. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article has this template transcluded. The other two links are redirects and the rest are red links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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).

Template:Supermarkets in Europe templates

A navbox to link together navboxes? Is this really necessary? At what point do we get down the navbox rabbit hole? Would suggest a navbox subcategory would be better, if Category:Supermarket templates (which already contains all of those templates linked here) itself doesn't suffice. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BannedMeansBanned

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).

The result of the discussion was delete, with the main concerns being harassment and grave dancing. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This just constitutes WP:HARASSMENT for banned editors, because when they're banned, they're notified, and when this template is used when they engage in sock puppetry, they be like "I already know I'm banned, so what!?". This would fit better as an user warning, but there is still no need to use this everytime a banned user engages in sock puppetry. TL22 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • See previous discussions here and here. BethNaught (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{sockpuppeteer}} and/or {{banned user}}. Standalone it's just a completely pointless piece of crap. --189.25.195.239 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{banned user}} or a similar template so the post-merge template includes the text "any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted" or a similar phrase. Okay with Keep (if kept, consider changing the color scheme from red to grey). Not okay with "delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted". Side-note: I agree with the nominator that the red color and having two templates that both say "banned" on the user's talk page gives the appearance of harassment. The fix is to change the layout and presentation of the messages to both the banned editor ("you are banned") and to the community ("he is banned, his edits may be reverted"), not the meaning of those messages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Template:Banned user/testcases for an example of how we can keep the existing template but make it look less intimidating to the banned editor. Note - ideally, the "big red box" that is now {{BannedMeansBanned}} would be neutral grey and it might not even be a box - it might just be text intended to be transcluded into other templates such as {{Banned user}}. I think "Banned user" is the only template that transcludes this one but it's hard to be sure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information I have asked that Template:BannedMeansBanned/sandbox's create-protection be removed. Once it is removed, we can play around with variations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary. NE Ent 01:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't we discuss this one already, or was that a different gravedancing template? Delete it with fire. I just don't understand the underlying model of human psychology here. "Someone is behaving badly despite efforts to make them stop. What should we do about that? I know! Make a template telling them we really mean it!" Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper Opabinia regalis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 14 November 2015 (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).

Template:Rupesh Paul

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not such a director who needs a template The Avengers (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, connects 5 articles, and seems no worse than the rest of them. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful navigational aid, clearly passes three of the five criteria on WP:NAVBOX, and arguably meets the other two (3 and 5) too. Perfectly standard use of a navbox. There is no added notability requirement for navbox eligibility beyond it linking more than two articles, so I would argue he is such a director who warrants a template. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 November 2015 (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).

Template:Anthony Marinelli

Film scores are not appropriate for navboxes, unless they link to the actual soundtrack articles, not the films. The composer is not an "auteur" of the film. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree, in today's Wikipedia deletionist atmosphere, standalone soundtrack articles would be AfD'd (merged) into the film article and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack tells us that the film article is the preferred place for discussing the soundtrack, score and tracklist. The soundtrack/score is a creative work and is ofttimes the subject of critic's review and the nominator's Auteur theory (directors only) does not address the placement of Category:Film actor navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes and Category:Film producer navigational boxes -- Cheers!009o9 (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We shouldn't have navboxes for everyone who worked on a film for the same reason we don't have actor navboxes (note that those in Category:Film actor navigational boxes do not link to their film credits except where they could be seen as a "team", akin to a film series) - these cause navbox bloat. What's next? Category:Cinematographer navigational boxes? Category:Film editor navigational boxes? Category:Best Boy navigational boxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is such a serious problem, where can one find an essay on Wikipedia:Navbox bloat? We are talking about a 3,310 byte file that can be extremely useful to readers that can reduce the need to repeatedly load the much larger biography to obtain the same information -- instead of linking directly to the desired article -- storage is cheap, bandwidth is expensive. There are other types of collections and relationships ("teams") that readers (film buffs) are interested in, i.e., who works with whom. A reader accessing a 10 year old film article is quite infrequent and that reader is much more likely to be interested in the credits than the film itself. So, I have to ask, have you ever seen a Best boy establish WP:N? We seem to have a widely used exception to the nominator's unwritten rule where Producer Navboxes are allowed. I can't think of anything that Producers contribute artistically; however, they are generally included in the film's promotional material which traditionally reads, Starring... Directed by... Produced by... With music by... More on Navbox exceptions below. Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, is there an example of another navbox linking articles by composer? Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes I think we are in new territory here (off-hand, I would not know how to create a search for other musical score artist templates) and the template storage area does not exist. I did not create one because the film director, actor, producer templates and even Film Choreographer navigational Navbox storage areas do not follow a very logical structure. Also, even though they are composers, the Composers category is for composers who write in notation, not the best fit for film score composers because they also produce and often conduct the music. I would preferred to have a category for musical score composers and then created a Navbox using the composer's category as the basis for the data. I was surprised that I was unable to find a top-level category for film score composers. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
009o9, a brief search returned {{Goldenthal, Elliot}}, {{William Walton}}, and {{Michael Nyman}}. not entirely the same situation, but in the vicinity. one outstanding difference is that, for example, the links in {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} are all for soundtrack pages, and not for the films themselves. in the case of {{William Walton}}, the template is not placed on the film article pages. for these reasons, I am leaning toward delete for this one with the suggestion that a category, say "Category:Films scored by Anthony Marinelli", would be more appropriate and reduce the bloat at the foot of the film articles. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes It is my understanding that this is how Navboxes are supposed to work, drawing their information from categories and presenting the collection in a user-friendly format in the footer of the article. Nobody clicks through to the categories because there is no indication as to whether there is an interesting collection there. As for bloat, I see the Navbox as a bandwith saver, instead of loading the artist's entire biography, finding the desired link and then loading the film article. Instead of reloading the biography several or more times, the Navbox allows the reader to go directly to the next film article in the artist's history. I suppose I could go around and add soundtrack sections to the film articles in question if that is the outcome of this discussion. Where there is no film article, I guess I could evaluate creating a soundtrack article(s). (See {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} where Drugstore Cowboy (soundtrack) is a redirect from a deleted article -- linking to the film article is largely inevitable with the deletions squads hard a work.) With Marinelli's (this subject) album and television credits, he should probably have a more verbose Navbox anyway. Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Category:Film scores by Anthony Marinelli now created and fulfilled. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we generally don't have them. See how we deal with {{Philip Glass}}, {{John Williams}} or {{Hans Zimmer}}, all much more prominent film composers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I am seeing is other exceptions where other composers have Navboxes on Opera and Musical articles, both are stage plays where the music is not always the primary draw and when the music is the primary draw, it is due the conductor and orchestra, not the composer. No matter how well the music is written, the credit goes to the person who pulls the music all together. Is there a general rule where these other composer's Navboxes are limited to articles about aftermarket media, rather than the production (stage play) article itself? IMHO we are discussing another arbitrary tradition where these tiny little files could save the Foundation a lot of bandwidth and processing time, by getting the reader directly to the information they are interested in, rather than searching or reloading the much larger (artist's) primary article. (Additionally, if you are truly concerned about bloat, the Navbox appears to be poorly written, a collapsed Navbox should not call for the (body/list) data unless the user opens it.) Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is because in the case of an opera or musical, the composer is one of the primary authors of the work in question. If a navbox pointed to a soundtrack article, then this would point to the work of the composer, which a film article is not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating and populating the category.
How is this different from the film score composer? (S)he is one of the primary of the primary authors of the work in question, which is the film, if the music alone was commissioned work it would be an album, not a soundtrack. MOS:FILM#Soundtrack prescribes that the soundtrack be discussed in the film article and with the speed that new articles get deleted these days, supporting articles, such as soundtracks are pretty much unwanted by a segment of the administrative editors. This past year or so, I am literally astounded by some of the Policies that have been bent or disregarded so that useful content can be deleted to suit one editor's preference. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply because a film score composer is NOT one of the primary authors of a film, they are the primary author of a soundtrack to a film. If that score has an article, then we have deemed the soundtrack notable, and yes, this should be linked to from the composer's navbox, as they are the primary author of that soundtrack. If there is no soundtrack article, then we have not deemed the soundtrack independently notable from the film, and therefore it does not belong in a navbox. {{Hans Zimmer}} is a good example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure how I didn't spot this before, but I note that creation of this template and the addition of it to the film articles are marked as WP:PAID edits. This WP:COI seems to be giving WP:UNDUE importance to the subject of the navbox, as composer navboxes are not standard. On some of these articles, this is the only navbox present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my disclosure is all over the place, but it is too easy to forget to add it to the edit summary every time. I'd prefer to have a separate account for paid editing, with a disclosure programmed into the signature, but that type of second account isn't expressly allowed, but I also do volunteer editing and improve a lot of articles with unrelated content. I guess I should have added the new stigmatized PAID (categorized) template to the Navbox talk page. In fact, until the second account issue is settled, I'm going to refrain from volunteer editing and change the signature on this account, the manual disclosure requirements are too ridiculous to try to have a dual-purpose account. Might just as well stigmatize every edit. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Navigation should probably be updated to clarify the consensus on Soundtrack composer Navboxes in film articles. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had an RFC on the matter, where there was no consensus for restricting it for producers and screenwriters (although this restriction was not without its support), but film composers is a stretch too far. If we allow this, then there's nothing to stop navboxes for film editors, cinematographers, production designers, executive producers, etc, etc, which really would cause WP:NAVBOXCREEP. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1#Template:Bill Conti, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Ilaiyaraaja Notable Film, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 9#Template:Rahul Dev Burman. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominating editor has proposed this new rule in this RFC and the proposal failed. Apparently, this is a case of WP:DEADHORSE. Additionally, Filmography navbox templates specifically exempts "creative" navboxes from the existing Actor exclusion, stating:
"Per this discussion the restriction only applies to actors. Navboxes templates for other creative such as writers, producers, etc. are welcome."[1] --Emphasis mine.
For now, I am not considering the nominating editor's edits to the subject's biography as retaliatory; however, his deletion of the Filmography and other content, where about 20 references where destroyed[2], was unsupported and the content will be restored pending the result of the article's talk page discussions.Talk:Anthony_Marinelli
This is obviously a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. An editor who has proposed a new rule and cannot live by that consensus. The fact that he has won one uncontested deletion nomination with two like minded editors does not take precedence over his failed RFC, or the existing project guidelines. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That was a discussion regarding producers and screenwriters. There is no precedent for film composer navboxes that link to the film articles. In fact, as you can see from the examples listed, any film composer navboxes of this nature have been deleted. There is no {{Danny Elfman}}, no {{Jerry Goldsmith}}, no {{Bernard Hermann}}, no {{Howard Shore}} or no {{Alan Silvestri}}, all far more important than Marinelli. Why should we make an exception here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your actual proposal in the failed RfC:
  • "Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)"
Where does that specify producers and screenwriters, or any other creator for that matter? The consensus on your RfC was no on your proposed restriction for navboxes on all creators except directors -- leaving the Actors ban in place. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 20:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Regarding importance, Marinelli and Banks revolutionized the way that film scores are composed and were pioneers in the development and adoption of a new instrument in film and music (the Synclavier) and you've removed dozens of those credits from Marinelli's Filmography. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the Film Project may have overstepped its bounds concerning denying Actors Navboxes on film articles. Taking a detailed look at WP:ADVICEPAGE (which is a Guideline, as opposed to WP:TCREEP is just an essay):
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. From WP:ADVICEPAGE page -- Emphasis mine -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly WP:WIKILAWYERING now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another essay that falls on my side of the debate (WP:WIKILAWYERING): "Use of authentic legal skills by legal professionals or other persons trained and skilled in the arts of negotiation and advocacy is welcome in proceedings of the Arbitration Committee and on Wikipedia in a variety of contexts." (Emphasis mine) You started a proceeding here that flies the the face of your failed RfC. As far as I'm concerned, I'm presenting my argument in the proper format to the proper audience, it's not like you are a newbie, your talk page confirms this and we are not dealing with article space. Now that you've even taken to editing (collapsing and recollapsing) my comments on talk pages,[3] with the heading of "Extended content", I'm pretty sure your objectivity is hopelessly impaired. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This falls under the standard use of templates to list creative works, has a source article, and in no way resembles the decision about actor templates. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The navbox fails several of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX and moreover their usage in this way is not typical of their usage on film articles. The director is generally considered the "primary" author and while we should make exceptions where someone besides the director could be regarded as the author that is clearly not the case here. Unless the films are musicals where the composer could be considered a primary "author" there isn't really a valid reason for linking them with a navbox. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a close call, and given that a category does not replace a template in use or importance, creating templates for every aspect of a film would lay out dozens of templates per article. Scoring has major importance in films, it sets the mood of a scene and gives emotional direction to the viewer. Change a few notes or tempo and a sad or tragic scene becomes one of lightness and character-frolic. But in this instance, as Robsinden mentions, scoring templates might be best if kept to musicals, in which the individual's work is not only one of many important jobs but is central to the film's definition and concept. Randy Kryn 11:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with everything said by Randy Kryn. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am inclined to agree with Dimadick. Composers are creatives along with writers, directors and producers. I think the score performers would be analogous to the actors while the score composers are like the creatives whose navboxes we generally keep.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful template that helps readers navigate the topic. Think its time we look at what is helpfull for our users over a projects odd POV that has not passed any proposal process and clearly causes problems all over. Not sure the projects understand why it was formed...should be .here to help navigate topics under its scope...not to make barriers to navigation.-- Moxy (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not particularly an 'auteur theory' subscriber, so I object to the premise that composers (and writers) aren't central to film. Directors do not contribute to a film's music, and their templates don't link just to articles about film's direction/blocking (or a writer's template linking to articles about the film's screenplay). -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption by User:009o9

Note that this user is going on a spamming spree and posting links to this discussion on many talkpages. Time to take them to ANI for a blocking. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a useful notification, neutral and legitimate, not "a spamming spree", and I thank User:009o9 for bring this discussion to my attention. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chris Haw

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shane Claiborne

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fifty Shades of Grey

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).

The result of the discussion was delete and move {{Fifty Shades (trilogy)}} into its place (leaving a redirect). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. It started out just calling two other templates which were navboxes at Fifty Shades of Grey which wasn't useful. Since then, it has grown even less useful as it now simply invokes Template:Fifty Shades (trilogy). I've changed it's only use to invoke that template directly in the Fifty Shades article so this template is not used any more. Whpq (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to the main template. or, move the main template to this title. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It would make the most sense to delete this template, and then move the main template here. This name makes more sense. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete or redirect as substantial duplication under WP:T3. {{Fifty Shades of Grey}} is the better title though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2015 (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).

Template:Salvation Army camps in Canada

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated all the short stubs into one article at Salvation Army camps in Canada and put in redirects so this template serves no purpose anymore. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (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).

Template:Animal-disease-stub

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't used. In the description for the stub category Veterinary medicine stubs, it says "relating to conditions and diseases of animals, and anatomy specific to animal species" Therefore, I think the animal disease template isnt needed MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not all animals are part of veterinary medicine. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment true, but I see this template as being redundant. The description includes "relating to diseases of animals" for Veterinary medicine stubs. If the animal disease template were to be used, I think the diseases in the veterinary medicine stubs should be moved over to the animal disease stub category and the veterinary medicine stub description would have to be edited. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be unused. Vet-med-stub will work just as well, provided that the appropriate categories are listed at that template. Montanabw(talk) 08:23, 12 November 2015 (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).

Air Rifle templates

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Cats don't exist, and so these stub templates don't need to either. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not used in any articles. I'm not 100% sure if they'd useful as feeder templates or not. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, unless there is an associated tracking category, in which case this should be considered at WP:CFD? Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these are not article templates, these are category templates. They should never be used in articles -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are no stub categories for these templates. Both link to Air Rifle, which doesn't exist and Air rifle redirects to Air gun. If these templates were to be used, I think the words Rifle and Gun should be lowercase. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2015 (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).

Template:Big Brother 2012 (Australia)

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template. It is specific to one single season of Big Brother Australia, and simply uses {{Big Brother endgame}} with season specific parameters filled in. I've reverted its use in the article as pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no need to split this from the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2015 (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).

Template:Lutheranism by country

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless t emplate. The creator copied the wiki markup for the map and accompanying legend from the Lutheranism article to create this template. She/he then replaced the original markup with a template which transcludes exactly the same thing. The only use was in the original Lutheranism article; I've reverted as it is totally pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, are you sure it wasn't their intention to also transclude it on Lutheranism by region? This article appears to make use of the same file, so keeping the keys uniform makes some kind of sense. Whether that would be enough to justify keeping I'm not sure, though. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes I am reasonably sure. This editor has created other one shot useless templates. See my 2 nominations above this one. As for whether use in a second article would justify not in this case --Whpq (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (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).

Template:Lisa Moscatiello

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Avenue is the only article in this template that survived a deletion discussion. Even if that were not the case, those 5 albums would probably only belong in Lisa Moscatiello#Discography and not in this template. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_10&oldid=691326712"