Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21

Template:WikiProject Roald Dahl

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) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Roald Dahl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WikiProject was not created. There is a Roald Dahl task force; relevant articles are tagged using {{NovelsWikiProject|roald-dahl-task-force=yes}}. DH85868993 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 22 July 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:RomColTop

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) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 22 July 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:Roald Dahl childrens book

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) 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roald Dahl childrens book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, and not necessary even if it was used. Made obsolete by Template:Infobox Book.--SGCM (talk) 00:25, 24 July 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:Road P (Ukraine)

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) 19:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road P (Ukraine) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Functionalty could be handled by {{Jct}}.

Delete per Fredddie. --Rs chen 7754 19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of {{jct}}. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:54, 22 July 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:River Geography

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) 19:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River Geography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 22 July 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:River City characters

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) 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River City characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The linked articles (List of River City characters (2002-2003), List of River City characters (2004-2005), List of River City characters (2006-2007), List of River City characters (2008-2009), and List of River City characters (2010-2011)) have been merged to a single article, making this template essentially useless.--SGCM (talk) 00:30, 24 July 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:Ring structures

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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ring structures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't better to just use the template in the appropriated articles? It is analogous to the Template:Group-like structures. Helder 12:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO both this template and the group template are not very useful. They are space inefficient, and while their information is clear, it's not as easily read as an abbreviated "family tree" version. Speaking as a ring theorist, I would not miss either of these templates. Rschwieb (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone processes visual information in the same way. Presenting the same information as a paragraph of text would clearly be inferior. As for whether a family tree would be better, do we even have such a template to compare this to? Until we do, it doesn't seem productive to engage in hypothetical discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you need an example I would be happy to give one, but do try to stow your dismissals and be open for valid points. Example: see the chain of containments in the text of integral domain. It is infinitely better than this template. In fact, that chain expresses all of the contents of this template more clearly, with the exception of division ring, which doesn't fit, and doesn't really seem important enough to include in the big picture. The template should at least have some housecleaning. Compare "ring" and "pseudoring": identical except for the waffle on identity for "ring". Waste of space. "UFD's" and "has unique factorization?", "commutative ring" and "is commutative"? Can I add the row "Artinian ring" and column "is Artinian"? Rschwieb (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. I'd like to see this used, or at least proposed for use in the various articles. If it is rejected, then it can be deleted. But it seems like that will be a content decision that XfD is not qualified to judge. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: No real justification for deletion given. I might suggest that this expanded format is better for the large majority of readers who are not ring theorists and thus are less comfortable with the basics... CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work: It isn't used because it isn't useful. Its contents are a bit arbitrary and there are a few "elementary" types of rings conspicuously missing (Artinian/Noetherian). If one wants to present the rings mentioned here, remove "divison ring" and use the chain appearing at integral domain. Rschwieb (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement there. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:56, 25 July 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:Rhode Island railroads

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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure.

Template:Rhode Island railroads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn It's part of a complete set of "railroads by U.S. state" templates, so I transcluded it into some relevant articles. DH85868993 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 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:Rhode Island hiking trails

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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure.

Template:Rhode Island hiking trails (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, just as useful as any of the other templates in Category:Trail templates. Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Template is now transcluded into several articles. DH85868993 (talk) 02:53, 23 July 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:Hello Venus

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) 19:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hello Venus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template links two articles, the main article and a redirect that leads to the main article. Insufficient links to be useful for navigation. — ξ ^xplicit 07:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the group just debuted on 10-May-2012 of course there will be just a few links, and at the moment I can't create articles of the songs or their show yet, now their promoting their second single, and just like any Kpop groups like SNSD Super junior or their sister group After school they are gonna be big, so give it a chance, thanks --Urville86 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not create templates in hopes that more singles will be forthcoming. As it stands, this meets WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't have a template based on the premise that a band will be popular in the future. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON.--SGCM (talk) 00:28, 24 July 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:PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale

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) 18:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Really? Do we really need to navigate between all of the series and characters featured in this game? The relevant point of comparison is Template:Super Smash Bros. series which has none of the component series. I know WP:OSE but I think the comparison is fair in this case: we do not need a template to navigate all these pages. The main PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale page sums this up already with the character table; we do not need a template with backlinks to do the reverse. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The navigation bar isn't as much for the PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale page as it is for the SuperBot Entertainment, SCE Santa Monica Studio, and the Bluepoint Games pages. It makes navigation through all things related to PSASBR easier, which I thought was the purpose of the navigation bars... Thatcher7732 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am for deleting it. I can't really form a sentence at the moment for some reason, but I know there is a good reason in there somewhere. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you can think of a better way to organize a navigation bar for it, feel free to mess with the template. If not, maybe it should be left alone. Especially since deletion policy doesn't include "I'm sure there is something wrong with it" and "It's not like the 'X' template" as reasons for deletion. Thatcher7732 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should not exist because it has little use. It is more or less the Characters section of the main article, but in a different form. There is a reason that Super Smash Bros Brawl and similar character mashup things don't have a template on each character's articles. It is excessive, as nobody searching for Sly Cooper is going to be looking for Fat Princess. These templates are used for navigation between the series's like articles. This game does not have enough subjects to where the main page does not already link to everything needed. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can be adequately covered in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale. A simple link back to that game from each character article in the prose can cover the relation. A template, while a good thought, is overkill. --Teancum (talk) 04:54, 28 July 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:Dariani Belle

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; deleted by MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dariani Belle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is supposed to cover the activities of a teenage singer/actress, but the credibility of the underlying article about her (Dariani Belle) has been called into question and that article is itself up for deletion. Half the links in the template are red links, and the majority of the others are links to "related artists" who don't seem to have any connection to this person (none of the articles for Victoria Justice, Pink, One Direction, or Ariana Grande mention Belle). Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 21 July 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.