Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

May 9[edit]

Template:Canada class 2[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 (no consensus) Erik9 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canada class 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've created a new Template:Canada railways for current railways. As for former railways, there are too many (at least ~~200~~ 1150) for a template. NE2 19:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see how over 200 can be "too many". {{Empire C ships}} has 183 ships listed and it manages fine. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 200 is a bare minimum; there are probably many more. That "Empire" template is horrible, with so many non-links, and a silly way of splitting (are people really more likely to want to navigate to another one beginning with C than one not beginning with C?) --NE2 17:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With 1,367 ships, I had to find a way to split them. Any ship is just two clicks away via bottom navbar on each template. Black text is preferable to a sea of redlinks. Mjroots (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Black text is not better than redlinks when they are valid article topics. There's also no requirement for a navbox for every topic. Please respond here, not on my talk page, to keep the discussion together. --NE2 21:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, final comment as this is getting off topic. Not every ship article will be created with the Empire name as the title of the article. The templates were created with assistance and support from one of WP:SHIPS most respected editors. Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But every article will be created, and redirects should be created from the "empire" title if necessary. --NE2 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1] lists about 1150, and that's definitely not a complete list. It's like listing all cities in the U.S. on a single template. Also note that listing by abbreviation won't work for the complete list; the names will have to be written in full to avoid duplication. --NE2 17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think a valid argument for deletion has been presented. PK T(alk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate? --NE2 17:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator doesn't mention any guideline that the template contravenes.....the current version of the template is totally acceptable. I will add that if the template grows too large (whatever "too large" might really mean) then it should be replaced with a category. PK T(alk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too many items. Garion96 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I to agree with User:PKT i fined that It has to many things is not really an augment maybe a category would be better. Cheers Kyle1278 13:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a useful template for people wanting to navigate Canada's rail articles. I don't think it's particularly ungainly, it's not like it takes up a huge amount of space, and it can be set to default collapsed if people really find it that offensive. Perhaps it could be split into two templates - former railroads and current railroads, but I disagree that former railroads shouldn't have a navigation template just because there are a lot of them. TastyCakes (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you imagine a template with 1150 railway names? --NE2 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Irrelevant. This template has about 206. PK T(alk) 20:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It will have at least 1150 if anyone ever completes it. --NE2 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many items. Navigation templates lose their usefulness when they're huge. Turn it into a list article or leave the job to categories. --NormanEinstein (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

n*Keep Change sections that could become unwieldy, either by picking the top 50 by some criteria or linking to list articles. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32 14 May 2009 (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:Rahul Dev Burman[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 Erik9 (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rahul Dev Burman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sachin Dev Burman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template for a film score composer as it doesn't lists his works fully. Consensus previously indicated than templates for actors and film personel except directors are unacceptable. Besides which we have the category Category:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman which the films are categorised as. We already have templates for Bollywood and awards, this template will clutter the article. The article Rahul Dev Burman filmography has also been created and also the templates only displays selected films, making it pretty pointless. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am myself aware of no similar templates, even for such widely known theatrical composers as John Williams, John Barry, Jerry Goldsmith, or Bernard Herrmann. In each of those cases, it could reasonably be argued that their films were often as noted for the composer's work as for anything else. I see no particular reason why this one composer's work demands a template of this type when even better known theatrical composers lack them. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous discussions. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some sort of link to these "previous discussions" might be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here for one. There were many more. Garion96 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion but note that "doesn't lists his works fully" is not a good argument for deletion. Rich Farmbrough, 11:35 14 May 2009 (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:Future sports venue[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 Erik9 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future sports venue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A well-written article should be able to distinguish the fact that an article is on something that does not exist yet. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep E.g. the Beijing Olympics venues were in progress a long time, and articles about what was proposed to the IOC would properly have used such a template. Expecting articles to make the dfference between project proposals and the venues completed (?) just prior to the Olympics in a clear manner is admirable, but not necesarly what we find. Collect (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't trust articles to be properly written (a sensible policy) why trust people to correctly apply the tag? Flowerparty^☀ 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is something which should be made clear in the lead and body of the article. No need for a huge template to tell readers this. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serves a valid identification purpose, as with the current event tag. TastyCakes (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concur with both Collect and TastyCakes. Chris (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad practice. If an editor knows how to remove {{future sports venue}} he knows how to turn "is a sports stadium under construction..." into "is a sports stadium...". Flowerparty^☀ 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a spin-off from other tags and the articles are not likely to change rapidly in the sense originally meant - which was for breaking and complex news, like Katrina and the London bombings. Rich Farmbrough, 12:45 14 May 2009 (UTC).
Keep - it is a useful tag that helps clarify things in this age of constant stadia building, renovating, and corporate name changing EnjoysButter (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sports venues take long enough to construct that it shouldn't be difficult for us to put together articles which accurately reflect their current state. (We shouldn't be blindly applying "future X" templates for EVERY topic that's in the future - just the ones which might be changing quickly enough that there's likely to be information which we haven't incorporated yet.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "this is a future foo" templates; and probably the "current bar" templates too. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mostly because new stadia and arenas are planned, the should be a category of "Future stadium/arena" within; however, it should be modified to fit the criteria. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:22 AM US EDT May 16 2009

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:Future channel[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 --Magioladitis (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future channel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A well-written article should be able to distinguish the fact that an article is on something that does not exist yet. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is something which should be made clear in the lead and body of the article. No need for a huge template to tell readers this. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A badly-written article should be able to make this distinction too. Flowerparty^☀ 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a spin-off from other tags and the articles are not likely to change rapidly in the sense originally meant - which was for breaking and complex news, like Katrina and the London bombings. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46 14 May 2009 (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:Adirondack Phantoms[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. Garion96 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adirondack Phantoms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

minor league hockey team wiki depth is not serviced well with a navbox ccwaters (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any guesses what that last sentence means? Strong Keep, could use some cleanup, but not bad enough to delete. Tom Danson (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: "minor league hockey team whose wiki-depth is not serviced well with a navbox" Basically: is there really that many articles related to this team (which hasn't even played yet) to warrant a navbox: I think the answer is no. I almost TFDed Template:Hershey Bears who actually do have a storied history, but I held off. ccwaters (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much use for a navbox for a team that has yet to play. -Djsasso (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, the team has not even played a game as of yet. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:59, 22 May 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:Philadelphia Phantoms[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 --Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philadelphia Phantoms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

minor league hockey team wiki depth is not serviced well with a navbox ccwaters (talk) 02:03, 9 May 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.