Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 8

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8[edit]

Template:President Bartlet's cabinet on The West Wing[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) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:President Bartlet's cabinet on The West Wing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A fictional cabinet used in only one article. In my opinion it should not even be in that article but in case people need it then we should substed there. Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already covered by Template:Characters on The West Wing which is also in the same article. No need for the duplication. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:03, 8 December 2009 (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:Hillsong TOC[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) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hillsong TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specialized TOC that was created for a list that at the time was divided across multiple pages. The list is now on one page (has been for over a year), so the more commonly-used {{CompactTOC8}} works just fine, making this template unused and unnecessary. RL0919 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no longer needed. Chris DHDR 18:41, 9 December 2009 (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 FrankLloydWright[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) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox FrankLloydWright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Can't see the usefulness of this template. Redundant with {{Infobox nrhp}} and {{Infobox building}}. Single use. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only used in one article, and as indicated in the nom there are other templates that can be used instead. The only unique field is the "opus" number, which although potentially interesting is not critical to the infobox. --RL0919 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2009 (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 Former parliament[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) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Former parliament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant with {{Infobox Legislature Historic}}. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant to a template that is used on a couple of dozen articles. --RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2009 (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:Bacon[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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELEAT. I love bacon as much as the next guy (NO REALLY, I LOVE BACON) but this template is freaking ridiculous. Really? Every single concoction bacon related jammed into a template? Its no wonder its collapsed to begin with, its completely unmanageable and indiscriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow, a nom started a whole 25 minutes after the template was created, and with ALL CAPS in the nom statement, um, okay. The template is quite specific and not indiscriminate, for example the books and dishes. Serves as a useful navigational tool on a specific subject matter. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with cirt 100%. I also can't believe that this nom started only 25 minutes after the template was created.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 08:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed the 'bacon in popular culture' section as the examples there were highly tangential and irrelevant, but the rest of the template is fine. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the removal of the 'bacon in popular culture' section at this point in time. Perhaps later there will be additional articles on the project that are more directly related. :) Cirt (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a useful navbox with plenty of relevant links. --RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's quite useful, and unlike with articles, "it's useful" is highly relevant for navigational templates. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite reasonable (although also a bit humorous) navbox useful for navigation. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bacon is a large topic, but not category or portal worthy. A template seems fine to link topics. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Portal:Bacon would be hilarious and awesome, as well as delicious. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not indiscriminate, and useful for navigation, which is of course the reason for navboxes. BTW, anybody notice the humourous (perhaps intentional?) misspelling in the nom?oknazevad (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-made and useful navigation.--Caspian blue 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Flash ^{talk} 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delicious. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2009 (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:David Benedictus[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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Benedictus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless and useless template where all but two links are red links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Boy has been turning those redlinks blue, but with one sentence sub-stubs. LadyofShalott 04:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was seemingly done purely in reaction to this TfD, and the "articles" are pointless one sentence statements of "X is a novel by Y". Tagged all for CSD, if declined will send all to AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously has enough work to justify a template. He also started taking over the Winnie-the-Pooh series from A. A. Milne. I stated in the creation of the template that I don't know which of his books are non-fiction,etc, and what group they should be in. I created the other articles, but these need help, if anyone can help add the necessary information to those articles, thanks. Lets give this the time to add information and become better as opposed to immediately putting it up for deletion before any work gets put into it. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) - 04:76, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't create any articles, you made a bunch of one sentence stubs. If you can't be bothered to actually show they are notable and that the author is notable, why bother? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, unless several of the new articles are expanded to demonstrate notability. It seems reasonable to consider the author and at least two of his novels to be notable. Whether the others are, I don't know, and just three articles isn't enough for a navbox. The problem is that this is being approached backwards: the focus should be on creating useful articles, and then creating a navbox for them when there are enough articles to make the navbox useful. Approaching it the other way has led to the hasty creation of articles that may not be kept, in order to support a navbox that may not be needed. If Cartoon Boy wants to take this on as a longer-term project, then the template could be userfied for return to template space after enough articles are worked into keep-able state. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Update below.[reply]
Weak Keep Almost certainly his most recent book is notable "Return to the Hundred Acre Wood" see http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/pooh-bear-returns-after-80year-gap-1298528.html and other sources in GoogleNews. So is his first novel, Fourth of June-- I added references. From a quick scan of WorldCat, I doubt any of the earlier ones are (The other articles have been prodded--I am redirecting them to the author so they can easily be expanded if reviews are looked for and found) There is not actually need for a template for the 3 articles, but there will probably be more. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, we appear to be up to at least five links. His first three novels all appear to be sufficiently notable, plus the most recent and his bio article. It is possible that a couple of the other novels are notable, and his autobiography produced some coverage for making scandalous claims about some minor celebrities, but these are less clear so I'm still searching for material. If there is enough to keep one more of the articles, I'll probably switch my position. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Switch to keep. I was able to find material on another one of the novels, so I now believe the number of articles that should be retained is enough to support a navbox. Several of his books definitely are not notable, so the box will need to be edited to remove the links to deleted/redirected pages, but deletion of the template isn't warranted. --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to find information on the novels as we speak, and I am fully aware that these will require plot summaries, links, etc. I have every intention of expanding these as I find them. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 24:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Cartoon Boy probably jumped the gun a bit in creating this template, but now that we have it and at least four of the books seem to be notable, we might as well keep it, and the links that are currently redirects can be turned back into articles when sources are found.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (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:Campaignbox Colorado War[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Colorado War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless to have a template with a single link in it (two if you count the headline). -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, and this really bugged me when I first noticed it too, but there are tons of other similar templates. Check out all the campaign boxes here, for example. I'm not going to say keep, because I sort of think you're right, but only if you want to deal with all campaign boxes like this one. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps it would be a better idea, then, to merge some of these templates into super-templates. Not one gigantic template, of course, but a number of templates with some sort of logical grouping? I'm not even close to being an expert on this subject matter, so I definitely should not be the one doing such a task. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:11, 30 November 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) 02:47, 8 December 2009 (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.

Congo flag templates[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) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CNG-Bra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CNG-Kin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These flag templates were created a couple of years ago as alternatives to the standard {{COG}} and {{COD}} templates, but with shorter link text. However, "Congo-Brazzaville" and "Congo-Kinshasa" are merely informal names for these countries, so we should not be recommending these names. If space is a premium in a table, {{flag|DR Congo}} (for example) could be used instead, and "Republic of the Congo" is only four characters longer than "Congo-Brazzaville". Note that these templates are already no longer used in article space. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 November 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) 02:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barring objections. This has had its two weeks, and more, so I think it can safely be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:52, 17 December 2009 (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.

China flag templates[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 per WP:CSD T3 and no objections Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHN-PRC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PRC-main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:HKG-PRC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MAC-PRC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These flag templates were created a couple of years ago as alternatives to the standard {{CHN}}, {{PRC}}, {{HKG}}, and {{MAC}} templates, presumably to stop edit-warring (e.g. look at the history of {{HKG}} from March–April 2006). However, these particular variants are not used in main article space. For consistency, we should recommend usage of the standard templates only, and if the need ever arises for something different, the standard {{flag}} template has more than enough flexibility to handle special cases. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2
{{HKG-PRC}} to {{HKG-CHN}}

{{MAC-PRC}} to {{MAC-CHN}}

76.66.202.219 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects in template namespace are useful when migrating to a new name, but if there are no existing usage instances, there is no backward-compatibility to protect. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 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) 02:44, 8 December 2009 (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:Andy Fickman[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 delete. delldot ∇. 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andy Fickman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only four films in four years, Fickman has not directed enough films to warrant a template, and is only a marginally notable director. His article is barely a stub, so its not as if the list of four film is somehow lost in it or too long to go there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not prolific enough to be served by such a template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep other director templates with four films have been kept, I dont see why this one should be deleted.--Yankees10 01:42, 2 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) 02:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful for navigation when placed on film articles, even if he never directs another film. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (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:FCHalpin[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 per discussion below Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have {{Fair City}} to connect characters. No reason to have a template to connect specific 3 characters only. Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2009 (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:FCFahey[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) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have {{Fair City}} to connect characters. No reason to have a template to connect specific 4 characters only. Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:58, 8 December 2009 (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.