Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1

edit

Template:Map of cities served by the Dutch railways night service

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) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map of cities served by the Dutch railways night service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. The associated Category:Pages with an EasyTimeline map (populated by this template) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Pages_with_an_EasyTimeline_map. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (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:Tianjin

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 No consensus to merge. No one stated a specific support or oppose, but there seem to be more reservations than enthusiasm. RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tianjin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Landmarks in Tianjin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Tianjin with Template:Landmarks in Tianjin.
I found this nomination incomplete. At Template_talk:Tianjin it said "Like the Beijing, Shanghai, and chongqing Templates, We should merge Tianjin Template with Template:Landmarks in Tianjin". Debresser (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (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:Arthur C. Clarke

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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arthur C. Clarke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Footer The Novels of Arthur C. Clarke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Arthur C. Clarke with Template:Footer The Novels of Arthur C. Clarke.
The footer is completely included in the general Clarke template, which is related enough to replace it. The only thing the general template deoesn't indicate is the authors with which some works were written as a collaboration, which I think is anyway out of place in a template. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (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:Footer Movies Silambarasan

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) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Silambarasan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The work of an ardent fan, promoting his favourite actor. Unencyclopedic and irrelevent as the actor is not too famous and has not done anything of worth value Universal Hero (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not a good reason to delete this template. I think it helps the user to switch to every Silambarasan movies, in my opinion it is good that you can switch to every of his movies. He is one of the famous actors in Kollywood. He is acting since he was born and recently he got a worldwide audio release function of his starring movie. In conclusion it is worth to use this template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purushoth1992 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very opinionated view from yourself above. Silambarsan has not won any award from a major film awards committee or acted in nay true film which has changed the trends of Indian or Tamil cinema. This issue has been raised before, and even filmographies with more popular acrors such as Rajinikanth or Ajith Kumar or Vijay would be rejected immediately. Universal Hero (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is helpful to use this. I would prefer you to make a template for rajini and kamal and etc., then every prominent kollywoodstar has a template like Simbu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.151.32 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, no. We've had such discussions in the past - and there is a definite no-no for filmography only templates. Universal Hero (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, surely it should be deleted. It has no encyclopaedic value and is the work an over keen fan glorifying his favourite actor. Universal Hero (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per repeatedly affirmed consensus against navigation templates for actors. We have navboxes for movies by director, not for other cast and crew. As far as I can tell from his article, he has only directed two movies, which is not enough for a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2010 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baptist footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to meet Reason 2 for deleting templates: The template is redundant to a better-designed template, specifically Template:Baptist. The template is also rather intrusive. Novaseminary (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Portal:Baptist seems to have been created entirely by Chromenano with only cats and other templates and the like having been added by a couple of other users, and it seems to focus on a rather odd assortment of "theological topics," for example. I am not sure that suffices as consensus. Chromenano is right that the Template:Baptist is no model of perfection either, but that doesn't mean that the new template is worthwhile. I wonder why Chromenano did not just improve the existing template. As for the template itself, this new Template:Baptist footer takes up the majority of the page of a good number of the pages on which it appears. It certainly is not lean and mean. I contnue to think it should be deleted. Novaseminary (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with having two different templates covering the same übertopic, these two templates cover the same material. There isn't enough differentiation to warrant a second template, and as has already been stated, the second one is poorly designed. Ἀλήθεια 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I continue to think it should be deleted. The template remains duplicative and is not attractive or functional. I also note that to date no editor other than the creator of the template has come out in favor of keeping the template. Novaseminary (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just noticed that the TFD notice had been placed in a "noinclude" tag, so that the notification was not appearing on articles that use the template. That could have a lot to do with why so few editors have participated in this discussion, since only someone who views or watchlists the template would have known about the nomination, unless they intentionally follow TFD. I've made the notification visible now, and if need be will relist this discussion again in hopes of getting more participation. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't sure whether that would be too disruptive to transcluded pages per the template deletion listing guidelines ("If placed directly into the nominated template, use <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template."), so I mentioned it on the Baptist talk page instead figuring editors watching that page would be interested. That said, it looks fine to me and I doubt it is causing problems on too many pages. Maybe editors will chime in now. Novaseminary (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (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:Adobe Illustrator

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adobe Illustrator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTADVERTISING. As far as I can see, this template serves no purpose other than promoting the software. See discussion of related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Created_with_Illustrator BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 1 January 2010 (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:Infobox in need of more info

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 Speedy deleted Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox in need of more info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently unused template of unclear purpose. Is it for templates which lack fields, or for articles whose infoboxes are incomplete? The only thing this template does is to categorise the article in Category:Infoboxes in need of more info, which if kept should be a hidden category since it's a maintenance category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as template creator Sorry, newbie mistake  . Tim1357 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2010 (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:CASH-SA

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CASH-SA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. A parameter on {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}} handles the needs of this template, making it redundant also. ---Dough4872 15:59, 1 January 2010 (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:Infobox geographic region

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) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox geographic region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No explanation as to what it is for, and it's unused/orphaned. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 14:36, 1 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_1&oldid=1140183966"