Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14

Template:Gallhammer

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, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN; only links are two album articles and the band's main page. Gongshow ^Talk 19:37, 14 September 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:Centiment

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, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigates very few articles; WP:NENAN. Gongshow ^Talk 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After further digging, I have boldly redirected Centiment to InMe as it appears to be a side project without significant coverage to support an individual article (WP:GNG/WP:BAND). I also redirected Dave McPherson (musician) to InMe since he is a member. The other link in the navbox, Greg McPherson, had already been redirected to InMe. Gongshow ^Talk 19:27, 14 September 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:LFO

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN The Banner _talk 11:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough articles included in the navbox's scope to justify its existence. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Navbox has 5 links
Mark Bell (British musician) does not link to any of the albums without the navbox.
Frequencies (album) does not link to Sheath (album) without the navbox.
Sheath (album) does not link to Frequencies (album) without the navbox.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backlink does not count. With just three albums out, it can also be fixed with normal wikilinking. The Banner _talk 07:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Moved template to Template:Warp Records to expand scope.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as NENAN is not a rule. Stop acting like it is. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase it: Can be deleted due to not enough links to make a viable navigation template. BTW: look at this The Banner _talk 12:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request closure as nominator Original author has moved template to another one with broader scope. Nomination useless now. The Banner _talk 12:59, 20 September 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:UnofficialUSMedals

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, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

One-use template: used only in Unofficial decorations of the United States military. Should be substituted and deleted. Robofish (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom. I'm sure enough of this template's uselessness that I preemptively substituted it. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete article masquerading as a template. Since it's already been substed... a delete can be carried out. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IP. GregJackP Boomer! 13:31, 20 September 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:Box office bombs navbox

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) 19:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Box office bombs navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Full of original research. Template arbitrarily defines a "bomb" to be a film that grosses 20% its costs (no source justifies this threshold). Loss and profit for films is difficult to define, and is not a simple gross minus budget calculation. In this edit, the template creator removed John Carter (film) on the basis it made money, yet Disney estimate a $200 million loss on the theatrical exhibition of the film (before it reaches home video), making it one of the biggest box-office bombs of all-time. Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Template:Box office bombs navbox advocates junking the template. Betty Logan (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wholly arbitrary and POV. As the nominator notes, these numbers are subject to dispute in many cases, as there is no easy way of determining exactly what a film's budget was. Robofish (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much better suited as an article. --Conti|✉ 10:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the arbitrary and non-defining nature of the template. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 10:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree per Lugnuts (talk · contribs), Betty Logan (talk · contribs), Conti (talk · contribs) and Robofish (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Betty's argument. Templates are most appropriate for a defined set of topics, such as all the films by a given director. Here the criteria for a box office bomb is too nebulous. The topic is best covered in articles where there can be context and verifiability via citations. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just want to point out to any admins that as the arguments are the same for both this TfD and the associated CfD, the same action should be applied to the template and category (e.g., you shouldn't delete the template but keep the category). ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there don't seem to be a consensus among reliable sources as to what exactly makes a movie a box office bomb. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with the arguments given by those above. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is too subjective a topic to have a navbox. i have myself created navboxes with what are to many editors overly subjective inclusion criteria. this is more than i can justify, esp. when you consider how studios can manipulate numbers to create "bomb" and justify various tax writeoffs and nonpayments.(mercurywoodrose) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current inclision criteria are arbitrary, and without those arbitrary criteria it would be subjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 15 September 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:No-importance

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) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No-importance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#No-importance?, the template has been already been deprecated. I doubt that its useful, but its not helpful for redirects and disambiguation pages. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 07:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your nomination is very confusing, especially I doubt that its useful, but its not helpful for redirects and disambiguation pages. Would you consider rewording that? I don't really understand what that means. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As consensus has already been reached to deprecate the template, I think deleting it would be appropriate. However, we should first remove the 268 transclusions of {{No-importance}}. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wouldn't it be simpler to redirect it to template:NA-importance ? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 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.

Great West football

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) 22:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Great West Conference football venue navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Great West Conference football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Great West Conference football navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Great West Conference stopped sponsoring football as of this year. All templates have nothing linking to them, except their own redirects. Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:24, 14 September 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:Koaham Shuttle stations

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) 22:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Koaham Shuttle stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has never been used and was blanked by an anonymous editor. Still, there's not much to save from the template as it was before blanking and besides, the template is under the wrong name (the spelling is Kaoham Shuttle). We might as well delete this and let anyone interested start from scratch if need be. Pichpich (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 14 September 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.