Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 11

< January 10	January 12 >

January 11

Planet Infoboxes

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have all been replaced by

Template:Infobox Planet, and are no longer used on any articles. It might be worthwhile moving the comments on the talk pages into the talk pages of the respective articles. Mike Peel 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Bluap 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer needed, and {{
man^{sign here} 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Confirmed that none of these templates are being used on article pages. Good job of template consolidation! — RJH (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, procedural. Good work to those involved in this project.
Warren 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no longer needed. Arjun 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Spot87 18:38, 13 January 2007 (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 page.

Template:Dce

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC) The intent of this is to insert it after you link to a

Wikipedia:Per for details. >Radiant< 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. We have policies, guidelines, the manual of style, and essays. In all cases, when an editor says "per WP:____", they're stating that the article in question expresses their views. Something doesn't have to be official policy to be a good idea. Indeed we don't want too many things to be official policy -- a collection of common sense essays and guidelines should carry us through most decisions.
Warren 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete since it's an unused template, but a comment to make on this...
Wikipedia:Per seems to have been created solely ~~to support this TfD~~ by the nominator, thus creating a perfect example of how Essays can be abused. --Barberio 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually,
Wikipedia:Per was created over four months ago (and it predates this template), so your allegation is false. >Radiant< 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologise, I misread the date stamp. However, it's still an essay who's sole contributor was you. --Barberio 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has multiple contributors now :) >Radiant< 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, only from me. To properly categorise it as an Essay not a 'Help Page', and note it's conflict with Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy --Barberio 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in conflict; it says that "if you cite an essay that does not imply it is policy". People cite things all the time; it is unwise to assume that (and very easy to check if) anything people cite is policy. Why are you bringing this up on TFD, though? >Radiant< 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Warren. Seems a rather silly template. Shall we start meta-tagging each citation of Wikipedia space?--Leflyman^Talk 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two things this will lead too, both bad. One, it will cause people to say "Oh, well, I'll just ignore you since you don't have a policy", and two, as cited by the nom, it will cause people to say "That's not a policy, you idiot, you can't do things 'per' it!" And the advantage is... people who are too lazy to actually read the thing linked know it's an essay. What? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (as creator of template) The purpose of this was to label links as being to essays rather than policy (as
WP:V)). By the way, it appears to have no transclusions because it's designed for subst, but I'm not sure if anyone else ever used it. --ais523 16:54, 14 January 2007 (U T C
)

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 page.

Template:Construction

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)

It's loud, rude, and in any case calls for improper (in)action; in case of speedy deletable-articles, they should be deleted notwithstanding recent creation, for example. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Inuse serves the same purpose, with a smaller, sleeker, better-worded box. Serpent's Choice 13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, redundant to {{
Warren 15:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete & redirect. This one's just overdoing it. >Radiant< 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: This template seems to combine the functions of {{
inuse}} and {{hangon}}. Which should it be redirected to? —Dgies^t c 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- I'd say {{
  inuse}} is probably more proper. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It definitely needs to be deleted and more importantly, redirected to a better template due to it's intuitiveness as a template name. I agree with moving it to inuse.
Quadzilla99 10:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Ugh! How ugly! {{
man^{sign here} 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. You're supposed to construct the articles out of mainspace anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems pretty useless to me... --
Sign here 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I think this template can improve. To me, it currently looks ugly. On the other hand, the codes {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} are already doing this template's job. - Qasamaan 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other (better) ones exist. Also rather ugly. Arjun 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to {{
Underconstruction}} ... probably the author couldn't find that one day and rolled his/her own. Just saw {{work}} with similar, but nicer understated appearance. // FrankB 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I think it is useful to have an "in use" template for specifically new articles. Perhaps a new version of {{
Underconstruction}} which indicates that the article is new and has yet to be "completed" (yes, I know) could be made to satisfy this niche. - Che Nuevara 03:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect or repurpose. There's a rather nice slip on the tag itself: "Note: If this page remains unedited for over 48 hours, please consider deletion of this tag. Thank you." I make it well over 48 hours without an edit now... Either redirect to {{
inuse}}, or repurpose as a (less ugly) tag for articles that are being created in multiple edits (possibly with a note suggesting that creating the article in userspace is another method of avoiding an article being speedied before you've finished a multiple-edit chain). --ais523 18:23, 19 January 2007 (U T C
)

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 page.

Template:Anime games

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

As discussed at

SeizureDog 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So, all visual novels are romantic games? Would you consider
Planetarian romance novels? Also, your use of the term "ren'ai game" is a neologism not supported by any reliable source discussing video games in English. Even the publishers of so-called "ren'ai games" call them dating sims. Ashibaka (tock) 20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Not all visual novels are renai games. Period. --Nyp 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems an unsuitable false categorisation to push all Anime Games/Visual Novels into one for specific (but large) sub genre. --Barberio 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only are they not all ren'ai games (and the term "ren'ai games" is questionable), but the deletion seems to be part of a bigger plan that is rather questionable. Ken Arromdee 03:11, 16 January 2007 (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 page.