Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 24

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24[edit]

Template:North Carolina Tar Heels field hockey coach navbox[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Carolina Tar Heels field hockey coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one notable person has coached the Tar Heels (and her notability does come from coaching, but from playing international hockey). Seems pointless to have a navbox that navigates only one article, especially when that is unlikely to change in the future. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. One link navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:49, 29 April 2012 (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:2007 North Carolina Field Hockey[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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 North Carolina Field Hockey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is this really necessary? As far as I can only two of the people listed meet WP:N (and that's because they played for the US, not due to their exploits for NC) and it doesn't look likely that any of the others will become notable in the future. IMO, we don't need a navbox that only links two articles. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not enough links. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless more than half of these gals are going to become notable pros.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 29 April 2012 (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:Out-universe[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. Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Out-universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is the opposite of a problem. My best guess as to its purpose is as a duplicate of {{more plot}}, but even plot sections should never be written in an in-universe style. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template not only describes plots, it also refers to articles that describe fiction (e.g. Fictional character, TV episode, novel, TV series, film) etc. that does not explain the characters, plot(s) and/or seasons and/or episodes in a clear, in-universe style, but includes a lot of detail describing the cultural references (TV episode), reception (TV episode, novel, TV series, film) and/or production and development (TV series, TV episode, film). 987li (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that is the exact opposite of a problem. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The important thing about a fictional work is how it impacts popular culture and society, not how the lasers work. For those vanishingly rare cases where a Wikipedia article already includes all the important bits but lacks a summary of the plot we have {{more plot}}. And even plot sections (by which I mean any exposition of fictional elements within the work) should always be written from an out-of-universe point of view. See Wikipedia:Writing about fiction for full details. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically a wp:CSD#T2 candidate, (Misrepresentation of policy), except wp:WAF has never risen to the level of a policy and the short section at wp:PLOT doesn't address the in-universe writing style explicitly. Creator is either trolling or completely misunderstands the point of an encyclopedia.Yoenit (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! This is the funniest template that I've seen here in quite a while. Nevertheless, it has to go — I can't imagine a situation in which it could legitimately be used and in which the {{more plot}} template would be inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2012 (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:Drydock (under construction)[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. If someone wants to merge it, go ahead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drydock (under construction) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary since we treat all articles under construction the same whether they're about sailing or not. I think it's wiser to stick with {{Under construction}}. Pichpich (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whimsy like this is unnecessary. We only need one metaphor here, and {{under construction}} is the right one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. e^xtra999 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It gave me a smile. I'd say it's worth merging to {{under construction}}. Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is quite bad, since sailboats aren't the only thing that uses drydocks (warships also use them, and oil tankers, etc) 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Cute but redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:52, 29 April 2012 (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.