Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

March 16[edit]

Template:Rozz Williams[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 relisted Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rozz Williams (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Two albums on his own name plus a few other "projects". Does this warrant a nav box (okay, mr. Jaxx will say yes, but he believes that every cross reference is enough for a nav box, because it might save the lazy reader a click) The Banner talk 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep - Articles Gitane Demone, Premature Ejaculation and Shadow Project are affiliated with Rozz, and do not yet have enough articles of their own to warrant their own navbox. IMO, there is enough of an association to warrant increased conspicuous connectivity. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NENAN. Only 3 articles directly related to each other. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - Under which navbox should Premature Ejaculation (band) and Shadow Project go? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    They shouldn't. Please read the above WP:NENAN. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - Your answer does not make sense with the question that was asked. I am familiar with NENAN and ANOEP, which are both only essays. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think they should have a navbox under WP:ANOEP which offers a lot more reasoning and makes more sense than WP:NENAN. T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 22:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • delete, only 3 directly related articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - At a minimum , move navbox to "Template:Shadow Project". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Could you provide a mockup below of what a T:Shadow Project would look like? --Izno (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Gladly,

Thing is, that Rozz has solo and duet work ANYWAY, which can be made into stub articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Still just 4 relevant links, all of band members. Not one album is linked (yet). Even this project does not warrant a nav box. The Banner talk 10:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jax's approach appears to be to create a navgation box for every band or musician that ever was, and pad it out with loosely-connected articles to increase the link count, and create sub-stub articles on non-notables if needed to reach the quota. This just create navbox spam on articles, by providing an overly-prominent set of links to topics on the basis of minor attributes of each article. It doesn't appear that there is enough material on any of the bands to justify a navbox, but that's a separate issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply How is this SPAM if Wiktionary defines SPAM as:
  1. A collection of unsolicited bulk electronic messages
  2. Any undesired electronic content automatically generated for commercial purposes
  3. An unsolicited electronic message sent in bulk, usually by email or newsgroups?
--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply. The concept of spam is much wider than that dicdef: see Spam (electronic).
    Regardless of whether you want to play linguistic pedantry games over the word spam, the point remains that attaching this template to lots of the articles gives undue prominence to what appears to be a relatively minor aspect of the topics of those articles --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per the ever-sagacious BrownHairedGirl. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly notable artist with a number of releases in his own name, at least three of which (Whorse's Mouth, Dream Home Heartache and Every King a Bastard Son are almost certainly notable. Seems like a completely suitable topic for a navbox. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Live in Berlin is also looking like it's probably notable. I'm yet to look closely at Accept the Gift of Sin. A discography article also wouldn't be out of the question, though it'd be long... J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - Three albums plus PE, Shadow Project and Gitane makes for five articles. Because this went to full AfD, two of Williams' albums have grown dramatically. Also, WP:BRD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accept The Gift of Sin was closed as "redirect to Rozz Williams", so I have unlinked Accept The Gift of Sin in the navbox. That now leaves only 4 albums in the navbox, which falls below the WP:NENAN minimum of 5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added the article on Williams's short film to the navbox. This means three studio albums, a live album and a film, all credited to Williams, are linked using the navbox. I will do what I can to expand Accept the Gift of Sin (which would make two live albums), as I have a couple of sources. A discography article would not be out of the question, as he has produced a lot of material under a lot of different names. There is possibly other media worth writing articles on; I know Williams wrote poetry and produced visual art, and some of this may have received attention thanks to his music career. I certainly can't commit to that, though. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - Thank you Milburn for all of your efforts. BTW, if this TfD has been open for over 30 days, why has it not been reslisted at all? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Closed as relisted. I'm not sure how TFD handles relists, so I'm just closing this as "relist" so that the bots think that all discussions here are done. I'm next going to copy the entire discussion to today's TFD log; none of the comments here should be lost. If you notice one that's missing, let me know and I'll fix it. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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:Jeordie White[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) 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Jeordie White (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

WP:NENAN 2 band, 3 albums. That can be solved with normal wikilinking and without nav box The Banner talk 22:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep - As of right now, the albums and bands do NOT all link to one another. If this can be solved by normal wikilinking like The Banner claims, The Banner should show us how to do so without making the article look wacky. IMO, there is enough of an association to warrant increased conspicuous connectivity. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Templates are not designed to save lazy readers one or two clicks. No every flipping cross references needs a direct link. The Banner talk 10:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - Actually, that is exactly what a navbox is for, per this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - Passes the weak test of WP:NENAN with 6 articles. --Izno (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, Delete. I see why this is a problem: It's a person-focused navbox where the person has not performed individually. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - Under which navbox should those 5 articles go? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    They shouldn't. You asked this question elsewhere, as if naively believing that they need a navbox (and that my answer here would differ). --Izno (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - This is a similar but still different question, and your answer does not make sense with the question that was asked. I am familiar with NENAN and ANOEP, which are both only essays. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • delete, we navigate by band or solo artist, not by artist who happened to be in the band. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - At a minimum , move navbox to "Template:Goon Moon" with Amboog-a-Lard and A New Hope as related articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Could you provide a mockup below of what a T:Goon Moon would look like? --Izno (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Gladly

--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Still just 4 relevant links. That can be solved by normal wikilinking and does not warrant a nav box. The Banner talk 10:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jax's approach appears to be to create a navgation box for every band or musician that ever was, and pad it out with loosely-connected articles to increase the link count, and create sub-stub articles on non-notables if needed to reach the quota. This just create navbox spam on articles, by providing an overly-prominent set of links to topics on the basis of minor attributes of each article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - How is this SPAM if Wiktionary defines SPAM as:-
  1. A collection of unsolicited bulk electronic messages
  2. Any undesired electronic content automatically generated for commercial purposes
  3. An unsolicited electronic message sent in bulk, usually by email or newsgroups?
--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Need I go on? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply. The concept of spam is much wider than that dicdef: see Spam (electronic).
    Regardless of whether you want to play linguistic pedantry games over the word spam, the point remains that attaching this template to lots of the articles gives undue prominence to what appears to be a relatively minor aspect of the topics of those articles --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - Six relevant links... --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply. White has not had a notable career as a solo artist. Creating a navbox for every band member is a recipe for massive navbox clutter, and it's a form of spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
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:Doogie White[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) 22:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Doogie White (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

WP:NENAN with just two links to albums, there is no need for a nav box The Banner talk 22:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep - Article Once Upon Our Yesterdays complete, navbox now has 5 articles, 3 albums that do not all link to one another, one band that links only to the singer (without the navbox) and one band that links to all but one of the articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Why are you only finishing up templates after a nomination? You clearly have the info, so why make dodgy templates? And don't tell you did not have the time as I nominated it about 7.5 hours after launch. And there is no need for cross references from every loosely related item to each other. Nav boxes are not ways to save lazy readers one or two clicks, they are supposed to improve navigation between closely related items. What will be next, a nav box to relate queen Elizabeth II to the horse "High Kingdom" of her eldest granddaughter Zara Phillips because she has seen it compete? The Banner talk 10:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    It is quite interesting that you now even use copyvio for your stubs. Things are going the wrong way here. The Banner talk 10:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. With only 3 albums, navigation remains simple. At the very least, repurpose the template to be a navbox for Cornerstone (Danish band). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - At the time I created the navbox, I thought that the number of unconnected articles related to White was sufficient for a navbox. Actually, a navbox is for ease of navigation, per this discussion. At a minimum , if the navbox is deleted, it should at least be moved to "Template:Cornerstone (Danish band)". --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Repurpose via a move and the addition of more links per the above section to make it about the band. Suggest name of Template:Cornerstone. --Izno (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • move to Template:Cornerstone (Danish band), then reorganize to make it band-centric Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Creating a template for every artist in a band just leads to template spam, and White has not had a solo career. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply - Why not move to Template:Cornerstone? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Jax, that response nicely illustrates one of the many fundamental problems with your template-spam activities. Cornerstone (Danish band) is a unreferenced stub article which shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG, and the two articles on Cornerstone's albums have one reference between them ... and even that is only to an allmusic.com listing.
        Rather than spewing out navboxes to like all these pages on non-notable topics, why not either improve the articles so that they meet our miniumum notability criteria, or put them up for deletion? Wikipedia is not allmusic.com. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be under the heading of Cornerstone, and if it were there, it would be too small to justify a navbox. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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:Anna Waronker[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) 05:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Anna Waronker (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

WP:NENAN. No direct links involved, rest could be done by normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 22:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep - Navbox now has 6 music articles and 3 bio articles. Without the navbox, none of the other articles link to Anna (album) , few of the articles link to Ze Malibu Kids, and Anna does not link to any of the other articles without the navbox. Need I go on? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Why are you only finishing up templates after a nomination? You clearly have the info, so why make dodgy templates? And don't tell you did not have the time as I nominated it about 7.5 hours after launch. And there is no need for cross references from every loosely related item to each other. Nav boxes are not ways to save lazy readers one or two clicks, they are supposed to improve navigation between closely related items. What will be next, a nav box to relate queen Elizabeth II to the horse "High Kingdom" of her eldest granddaughter Zara Phillips because she has seen it compete? The Banner talk 10:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. {{That Dog}} already exists. There are wikilinks between family members within their individual articles. Nothing else warrants such connectivity. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Reply - At the time I created the navbox, I thought that the number of unconnected articles related to Waronker was sufficient for a navbox. Anna Waronker and Donna Loren do not link to Simon Waronker as of now, and Anna and Donna's articles are quite lengthy. Actually, a navbox is for ease of navigation, per this discussion. At a minimum , if the navbox is deleted, the information should at least be moved to "Template:That Dog". --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - The main article's got a large number of boxes at the top, which leads me to believe that it wouldn't survive a prod-blp, much less an AfD. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - If you believe that Anna is not notable (despite her solo album, Ze Malibu Kids and That Dog), then why don't you nominate her article at AfD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • delete, the single solo album can be included in the related section of template:That Dog. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. Largely duplicates {{That Dog}}, and therefore just amounts to navbox-spam on articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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.

More templates by User:Technical 13[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) 05:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Tbullet-s (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:AddSig (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:YourSig (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:TimeStamp (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This has now hit the threshold of competence is required. Technical 13 needs to stop creating pages in the Template: namespace until he is more practiced in writing template code. I suggest he limits himself to editing existing ones for the time being. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • So, because I wrote the templates, they should all be deleted?
  • So, please explain to me what objections you have to each one? Thank you. T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 21:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    I'll give you one example.
    ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~</noinclude>
    That's a way to get someone's signature when they substitute a template. It doesn't need a special template created for it. I'm going to be blunt: you are not very good at template programming, especially in your understanding of substitution. Any problem you think you've encountered is either not a problem or has already been solved. You are trying very hard to be helpful, but the level of help that you are able to offer is very poor. You need to stop trying to run before you can walk; start working on the encyclopedia instead of trying to invent things, and you'll find plenty of places where you can help. This is not the way. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    That also seems excessively complicated... I've used just "~~<noinclude/>~~" before now. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    Fantastic. I didn't know that noinclude worked in void element form. That's going to be very useful, thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    Hex, typing in ~~&lt;includeonly&gt;~~&lt;/includeonly&gt;&lt;noinclude&gt;~~&lt;/noinclude&gt; everytime is shorter and easier to remember than {{subst:AddSig}}? PTG, ~~&lt;noinclude/>~~ is easier for everyone to remember? I just wanted to make it short and simple... T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 23:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The actual problem is that you don't know how to write template code, and you're projecting your lack of experience onto imagined others. Stop trying to invent things and just learn to code first. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unnecessary templates that either a) duplicate the Mediawiki base functionality or b) which aren't needed, whatsoever, to be used in various templates. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • delete, clear over-templating. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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:Roman2dec[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. Author moved to User:Technical 13/Template:Roman2dec. WOSlinker (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Roman2dec (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Since not all the extensions required for this template to work are installed, there seems little point in having this template around. If there is a need for it, it probably needs doing in lua. WOSlinker (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • This is another template by Technical 13. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be opposed to moving this template to my user-space until the appropriate extensions can be installed (of which I believe I have a request in for). Once I have a chance to do this, I will mark it as G7. T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 20:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find your request, but I did find bugzilla:7865 (circa 2006), which was closed as WONTFIX. The developers created wikitext as a document markup language, and don't like the way it's become a sort-of programming language. Now we have Lua for programming, there's no longer an excuse for heaping more programming functions into wikitext, so they will be even more resistant to enabling such extensions than they were in 2006. As WOSlinker said, if there's a need, do it in Lua. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
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:SupportSection[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) 05:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:SupportSection (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

See this discussion from yesterday. Before it could conclude, Technical 13 nominated the template he created for speedy deletion; but then recreated it under this different name two minutes later. My assumption of good faith for this user is beginning to run out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep: It's an entirely different template. Consensus seemed to be that few liked the two stage template that used two <div> sections, a 25px block image of a check-mark, and the wording wasn't specific enough. There was hinting by a few of those discussing it that there it wouldn't be bad for there to be something similar to that template, but as worded by Hex, "An "I approve" might be a good addition to Category:Image with comment templates, but it would need to look completely different." This being the case, I created a new template that uses a single <span> section, an 18px rounded image (that is used in other similar templates, and made the wording specific. I then G7ed the old template as it was no longer needed. T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 20:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I (and Hex) are being very generous by not tagging this with {{db-g4}}. I strongly suspect what Hex had in mind was something much more subtle,  I approve or thumbs up I agree for example. There is no need to attract attention to your opinion by using a big box. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, after reading the deletion discussion mentioned by Frietjes below, I've changed my mind, it wouldn't be a good addition! — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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:Wikify/tutorial[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. G8. Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wikify/tutorial (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Wikify/tutorial/sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Nowikify (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Nowikify/content (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Nowikify/doc (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Now that {{wikify}} has been deprecated, these templates are no longer needed. GoingBatty (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete seem to be ready for the glue factory. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have deleted these via WP:G8 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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:Infobox Island of the Bahamas[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) 05:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Island of the Bahamas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

no longer in use, and redundant to {{infobox settlement}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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:Infobox tunisian athletics[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) 05:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tunisian athletics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

It is fully covered by {{Infobox sportsperson}}. Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I mean above. We'll delete this template only after replacing it by {{Infobox sportsperson}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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:Infobox sportspersonv2[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) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox sportspersonv2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

We have well-established {{Infobox sportsperson}}. This one is used only in 2-3 pages. I see no need to have it. Magioladitis (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete not clear what this attempts to improve upon compared to the existing Infobox sportsperson. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1928–1939[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 move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1928–1939 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) was created only in 1940. The Academy Award for Best Story was an Academy Award given from the beginning of the Academy Awards (1927) until 1957, when it was eliminated. The categories are different, with different winners. --Borowskki (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep and rename There is no reason to delete the template. Almost all academy award templates have templates. Just rename this and create the proper categories for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
rename and expand to cover the Academy Award for Best Story. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
now renamed. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
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.