Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11

Template:FancyBottom

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and does seem to be that useful. WOSlinker (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2011 (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:Bausteindesign5

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. WOSlinker (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bausteindesign5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recreated template that was previously deleted in February 2010. Only used on one inactive WikiProject. WOSlinker (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the creator I am happy that this is not needed. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2011 (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:2010–11 in Algerian football

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010–11 in Algerian football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template just contains redlinks. Suprisingly it is actually in use. WOSlinker (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2011 (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:Top Gear Specials

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, per CSD T3. (Non-admin closure - if some of these old discussions aren't closed, TfD is going to begin to mount up hugely.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top Gear Specials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completly redundant with the {{Top Gear}} template - all the articles in the former are also in the latter. Lugnuts (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2011 (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:Wikipedia Mainpage Strapline

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia Mainpage Strapline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In May 2007, "[t]his template [was] made for future proposals." No longer needed. Unused. Not even any incoming links. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2011 (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:Wikipedians

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Wikipedians2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikipedians talkbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One single usage of {{wikipedians}}, the others are unused. This is a bad idea. Why would one want to navigate to a list of, say, Wikipedian homebrewers, from Talk:Homebrewing? It's a self-reference of the worst kind (of course, talk pages are immense self-references anyway...) But it is just unnecessary. If kept, some plan for its use and development must be established. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2011 (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:Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Pioneers staff

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Pioneers staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A list of non-notable people who are correctly omitted from the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Pioneers article. Unused, unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2011 (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:Women'sFL

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Women'sFL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This "unnamed top-level women's football league" is probably the {{WFA}}. Unused. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All these teams have joined the Women's Football Alliance, so this league is dead in the water. (And I'm the author, so that should be automatic deletion). Tom Danson (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (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:Windsurfers worldwide

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Windsurfers worldwide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very poor template. It's supposed to be about windsurfing. But one link is about an asteroid, one is to surfboard, one is about a manufacturing company which actually makes sails, and so on. Unused. Also delete redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2011 (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:WorldFigureSkatingMedalistsDance

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superseded by list in article World Figure Skating Championships#Ice Dancing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2011 (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:Xpdop10pec

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. Documentation provided, purpose is now clear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xpdop10pec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a doc page. It is part of a system. It has been used [1] and will be used again whenever applicable.--Patrick (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (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:Xpdplain

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. Purpose now clear. I put the comment below on the doc page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems (?) to render {{xpd}} in plain text, not monospace. No real reason why you would want this; the fact that it is unused is testament to that fact. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a doc page. It demonstrates the rendering of wikitext without braces, unlike {{xpd}}. It is part of a system. Examples of usage (useful on Wikipedia too) can be found in m:Help:Special characters.--Patrick (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2011 (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:Year header

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 delete.

Template:Year header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to be intended for grouping together the templates that generally appear at the top of a year article. However, it is potentially confusing for editors, and it is currently not in use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2011 (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:Xenosaga character

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xenosaga character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. It appears that all characters are listed in the article List of characters in the Xenosaga series, rendering this infobox-segment without much place. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2011 (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:X The Album 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X The Album series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. All links redirect to same article, X the album. Not useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. The separate articles to which the template referred were all deleted and merged back into the same article, ref. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Worship 2007. So, no, not useful by itself. I would have preferred to see each album in the series have its own page, however that's not the subject of the present discussion.Petersent (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (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:XC lines

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XC lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:XC stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Specific purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete' these templates are for use in the {{s-line}} templates. There is normally a set of templates that control the parameters in the template. (e.g. {{Amtrak color}}, {{Amtrak lines}}, {{Amtrak stations}}, {{Amtrak style}}) These particular templates don't seem to do much. Also {{XC color}} exists but it used in many articles. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:32, 19 February 2011 (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:Wpsource

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, orphaned, and no clear purpose. Can be recreated or userfied if this is actually needed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Seems to be a basic citation template. But it is redundant to our friendly "cite" family of templates. Its exact purpose is unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2011 (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:Years in Andorra

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 no consensus, template has been reformatted, renamed, and the parent articles have been restructured. Feel free to renominate if there is still a desire to delete it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer note: moved to Template:Decades in Andorra. Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]; Template:Years in Andorra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages); ~~Template:Years in Androrra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)~~

Pair of identical templates. Only one blue link, in which the correctly-spelt one has its only transclusion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is a speedy, which I have done, the first should be kept to allow the Andorra years pages to develop. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Further deletion rationale: The template is so big as to be very difficult to use, and overwhelming. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or move to project space. While redlinks are good, excessive redlinks in navigation templates is not so good. Navigation templates should be for navigation. I commented out a hundred or so redlinks, but still the problem remains that there is only one article. The category containing these templates only has around 50, and I am sure there is more than 50 countries, so I am wondering what the development schedule is for this project, and if Andorra is at the top of the list, being such a small country. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of this template (and "1978 in Andorra") is "retired", so I am wondering if this will ever be developed. In addition, the associated article, "1978 in Andorra", is orphaned. I have no idea how an editor would be drawn to this page or to this template to help with its development. Given the state of the article, it's almost worthy for AFD, and then the template along with it. It's a shame, but there is so much to do, and I don't see this one as a high priority. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That raises an interesting question about "year in foo" articles in general. However I have never subscribed strongly to the "orphans are bad" principle, since even I hit many pages vis Google, and I generally have 30+ Wikipedia tabs open. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment! Didn't know you meant Dr B! Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Since Andorra is undeniably small, I have moved this to "Decades in". can always be split out later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep As decades. I will expand 1970s shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 22 February 2011 (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:Ymbb

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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rather unnecessary boilerplate text. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote this very simple template as a shortcut to be subst'ed into warnings. If I'm giving an editor some explanation of why what they did or are doing is bad, a standard boilerplate warning doesn't cover the specifics - but a simple comment often doesn't get read as if it were a proper warning. So I write a comment specific to the user's conduct, and end it with the standard language - {{subst:ymbb}} - which is rendered as You may be Blocked from editing. This highlights the fact that the comment is indeed a warning, and provides a link to the blocking policy. There's no way to determine how much this template is used, as the language is standard to any of the dozens of warning templates - and, because it is substituted, there are no transclusions. The template is not redundant, in that it serves a specific purpose that other warning templates do not. Its specific purpose is to insert boilerplate language, which is a permitted use of templates under WP:TMP. It's not incivil or NPOV - quite the opposite, given that the language is standard. If you could somehow prove that I am the only admin on the project that uses this template, you might make an argument to userfy - but that defeats the entire purpose of having the shortcut in the first place. Given that the template is useful and violates no policy, and my obvious bias as the template's author, I have to recommend Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've added the template to Category:Wikipedia substituted templates; an oversight on my part, to be sure, but obvious given even the briefest reading of the documentation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:22, 11 February 2011 (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:Zimbabwean selected picture

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 BOLDly moved to Portal: space. It seems that other portals do it this way. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 17:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zimbabwean selected picture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This sort of template is not used by other WikiProjects. The status of selected/featured picture on a portal is not important enough to deserve a box on the image page. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that this is different is not a reason for deletion. From what I have seen, when portals were big featured content on one was important. At the very least ask the project and/or move it to project space --Guerillero | My Talk 22:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of imboxes should be governed by the following principle: "is the information given by the box going beinto add value to the image description by being (a) informative for people wanting to find out about the image, and/or (b) necessary for legal reasons?" Wikipedia featured picture: yes, it's one of our best pictures. Portal selected picture: no, this was a choice of a small number of editors from what was likely a limited selection - doesn't add value to the image description. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2011 (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:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1927

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. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1927 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one aviation incident present. WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the 1928 and 1925 one. A quick look at the templates from this decade show only two or three incidents each year. A better solution would be to Merge all of them into one template for the 1920s. Lugnuts (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that quick look only shows the articles that have been created. World Directory of Airliner crashes shows 46 accidents involving airliners in 1927. The solution is to write more articles on 1920s aircrashes, not to delete navboxes. If we merge these now, the a de-merge could prove necessary in the future. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found and added a 1927 incident (if I've understood the criteria correctly) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The addition is in line with other templates for the 1910s-30s. Whether or not these should be added is another discussion, which can wait for a better time and venue. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mjroots. A merge would be silly since the template is only going to grow bigger, but not smaller. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Mjroots' explanation - and also WP:DEMOLISH. These templates are part of a consistent template series, and also have considerable room for expansion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of a series of templates and as indicated will only grow larger over time, not smaller. No good reason to delete it at present. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2011 (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:Kirk Jones

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kirk Jones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, directory only has three films to his credit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three films in my opinion is enough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting a second time since only !vote is from template creator; note that creator has also made several other similar templates with only three films, all of which have been successfully deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I expect that the article itself is sufficient to provide navigation. A reader at a film can link to the article about the director, and from there find other films by the director. The navigation box isn't needed. --Bsherr (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three films isn't much, but there's no reason to suppose Jones will stop making movies. The template can expand as his CV grows longer. —Angr (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguements below on the Rob Letterman template, and the huge conflict of interest of the nominator using an essay he's wrote as the only reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per three films being a sufficient threshold to have a director template. We'd have to go out of our way to mention the director's other films unless they were somehow related. In addition, the advantages of a navigation template are that it's "faster to navigate than a category" and it can "give immediate information to equivalent elements" (films by the same director). Erik (talk | contribs) 13:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above arguments. While small, the template can only grow, unless the director in question stops his work. In reply to Lugnuts, the fact that TenPoundHammer wrote WP:NENAN is largely irrelevant, as the page is used in rationales by other editors, and has formed the basis for many agreed-upon navbox deletions. Furthermore, it is after all an essay. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2011 (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:Rob Letterman

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rob Letterman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, director navbox with only three films. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three films in my opinion is enough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I expect that the article itself is sufficient to provide navigation. A reader at a film can link to the article about the director, and from there find other films by the director. The navigation box isn't needed. --Bsherr (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage of a navigation template is to be "faster to navigate than a category" and to "give immediate information to equivalent elements" (other films by the same director). Erik (talk | contribs) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three films isn't much, but there's no reason to suppose Letterman will stop making movies. The template can expand as his CV grows longer. —Angr (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 99% sure that we reached a consensus that 3 films was enough to justify a director template. I've asked for comments here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since three films are enough. The threshold is usually 2-3, and I normally encourage "See also" sections to link to a director's other film if there are only two. Worth noting that WP:NENAN is solely penned by the nominator. While I can understand the argument against a minimal film series template due to in-body inter-connectivity, films by a director are not necessarily going to be mentioned in the same vein. (If we did, it would kind of come off as promotional, IMO.) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above arguments. While small, the template can only grow, unless the director in question stops his work. In reply to Erik, the fact that TenPoundHammer wrote WP:NENAN is largely irrelevant, as the page is used in rationales by other editors, and has formed the basis for many agreed-upon navbox deletions. Furthermore, it is after all an essay. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2011 (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:Credit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also the prior discussion back in 2008: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_22#Template:credit

The template:byline was deleted: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_17#Template:Byline. For me it maybe looks like the Wikipedia:Captions#Credits must be rewritten or this template deleted? As far as I've understood cc-by-sa 3.0 can require that the Photographer must be credited below the picture? Nsaa (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Convenient to have in order to comply with license requirements where attribution is required. Jerazol (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we don't, rightly or wrongly, give in article bylines to CC-by photos. Nonetheless there are other licenses that we very occasionally use where an on page attribution is required. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep there are a few licenses that require this. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:51, 17 February 2011 (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:Contribs

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 BOLDly redirect. Nobody seems too fussed. The two templates are an obvious duplication, and in my view (and apparently that of cymru.lass), the other one is better. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{UserContribs}}, should be redirected there. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 08:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:37, 11 February 2011 (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.