Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 22
March 22
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) 02:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Template:PixarChronology2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:PixarChronology14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I don't understand what these templates are trying to accomplish. Their links are duplicated in their entirety by Template:Pixar. They seem to be listing the films in chronological order but the aforementioned template already does that and does it better. They are only transcluded once each. Strong delete, please. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, can these be WP:CSD#T3'd? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment from the creator: I post this here not to defend these templates but merely to explain the purpose I had in creating them. I am doing this so that maybe this purpose may be accomplished in a better way, and, if it were, I would have no disagreement or resentment at their deletion. The current pattern of Pixar films, and one that has been going on for at least the past eight years, is that there is usually one major Pixar film per year. In other words, Pixar films have established themselves as a sort of annual event. Although they are not treated this way on Wikipedia, as there have been some gaps (no film in 2005, for example), most articles pertaining to annual events, traditions, films, etc., have links pointing to the previous and next installments of those, usually located at the bottom of the infobox. It seemed only natural to me that when browsing through a Pixar article there should be something of this nature, a link that would automatically take you to the next or previous film, and yet there never was. The best way to accomplish this, I thought, was through the templates. I still do not believe the templates are the best method for fulfilling this purpose; if someone were able to add such a function or capability onto the bottom of the infoboxes for each film, that would serve the function even better and would dispense with the need for these templates. I hope what I have said here is understandable and that my suggestions will have consideration put into them; if this is done, I will have no backlash or rebuttal over the proposed deletion of these navboxes.
Thank you,
RedSoxFan274 (leave a message~contribs) 07:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)- I see where you're coming from but I don't think having the perception that it's an annual event automatically makes it an annual event, by Wikipedia's standards. Also, what's wrong with listing all the films at once with their years in the main navbox? Doesn't that accomplish the same thing? They're in the correct order and everything. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it does in essence accomplish the same goal, and, perhaps this is my little finicky preference alone, but it has always seemed that there should be some sort of chronological navigation made available more towards the top of the page, rather than having to scroll down to the bottom. For example, on an article for a sports season, there will be at the top of the page links to the previous and following seasons, and at the bottom a navbox with links to all of the seasons. Although I do understand why Pixar films would not be considered or treated in the same way as annual events, it always seemed that their articles should have something similar to this setup.
RedSoxFan274 (leave a message~contribs) 00:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it does in essence accomplish the same goal, and, perhaps this is my little finicky preference alone, but it has always seemed that there should be some sort of chronological navigation made available more towards the top of the page, rather than having to scroll down to the bottom. For example, on an article for a sports season, there will be at the top of the page links to the previous and following seasons, and at the bottom a navbox with links to all of the seasons. Although I do understand why Pixar films would not be considered or treated in the same way as annual events, it always seemed that their articles should have something similar to this setup.
- I see where you're coming from but I don't think having the perception that it's an annual event automatically makes it an annual event, by Wikipedia's standards. Also, what's wrong with listing all the films at once with their years in the main navbox? Doesn't that accomplish the same thing? They're in the correct order and everything. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment from the creator: I post this here not to defend these templates but merely to explain the purpose I had in creating them. I am doing this so that maybe this purpose may be accomplished in a better way, and, if it were, I would have no disagreement or resentment at their deletion. The current pattern of Pixar films, and one that has been going on for at least the past eight years, is that there is usually one major Pixar film per year. In other words, Pixar films have established themselves as a sort of annual event. Although they are not treated this way on Wikipedia, as there have been some gaps (no film in 2005, for example), most articles pertaining to annual events, traditions, films, etc., have links pointing to the previous and next installments of those, usually located at the bottom of the infobox. It seemed only natural to me that when browsing through a Pixar article there should be something of this nature, a link that would automatically take you to the next or previous film, and yet there never was. The best way to accomplish this, I thought, was through the templates. I still do not believe the templates are the best method for fulfilling this purpose; if someone were able to add such a function or capability onto the bottom of the infoboxes for each film, that would serve the function even better and would dispense with the need for these templates. I hope what I have said here is understandable and that my suggestions will have consideration put into them; if this is done, I will have no backlash or rebuttal over the proposed deletion of these navboxes.
- Per the creator's rationale above, these are succession boxes for something which isn't a proper series. A standard navbox is perfectly adequate here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not a proper way to navigate. We already have the Pixar box as it is. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - No reason to have so many templates for navigation purposes, when a navigation tool is already embedded. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:03, 28 March 2012 (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.
- 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) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Mr. Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Since template was trimmed of most content (which was appropriate), it serves no navigational purpose. I have created Template:David Cross, which is more than adequate and accomplishes everything this one did. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good call: a generalised director navbox is the optimal solution here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, subsumed by better template. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2012 (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.
- 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) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Only contains five links, redundant with Template:Ottawa Renegades. 117Avenue (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, no need for two navboxes when one will do just fine. Redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (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.
- 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 under G7. — ξxplicit 02:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There is Template:Serbian Orthodox churches which containt first one.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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) 03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant and the latter serves better navigation among related topics. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: The template dosen't have a deletion template on it, meaning that people who would interact with it might not know it's been listed here. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just added it. It also appears to be speedy G7-able, since it's the author who requested TfD and it doesn't appear to have any content difference between the author's last revision and now... Axem Titanium (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: The template dosen't have a deletion template on it, meaning that people who would interact with it might not know it's been listed here. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:41, 22 March 2012 (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.
- 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) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Template:ARS/Tagged (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No longer used template based on now-deleted category. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, deprecated maintenance template. Probably speedy G8'able. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment One might think that, and yet, my G8 was declined last month—which is why it's here now. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:06, 23 March 2012 (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.