Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 28

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 debate was keep for now. Can always be put up again. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Genealogics descent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Genealogics pedigree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Genealogics name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates primarily to advertise non-notable Web site. Four templates being placed in nomination. Others are: Template:Genealogics name, Template:Genealogics descent, and Template:Genealogics pedigree. — SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not know a whit about policies regarding deletion or non-deletion of templates. My reason for my opinion is unusual: Genealogics is a good source and useful illustrative link, and should be used as such here. These templates restrict its use unnecessarily, because in Genealogics, the linker (the one who writes the url) is able to choose which number of generations is best to be displayed for the reference/illustration of a wp article, if the link is freely made, not through a template. But the template has taken into use only one fixed number of generations, and that may even be very stupid for some situation. Modifying the template(s) to include the possibility of choosing the number of generations for display, is too much bother, and seemingly would add the absolute number of Genealogics-related templates to multiples, which would be stupid. I support deletion, because these are harmful templates.
  Genealogics as itself is notable. For example, it deserves an own article here in Wikipedia. Marrtel (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It's absurd to characterize these templates as "advertising" - rather they are tools meant to make use of a valuable resource. I'd like to suggest that rather than deleting them, they simply be modified to accept "# of generations to display" as a parameter (and to default to, say, 5 generations if no parameter is supplied). Actually, a single template could be designed that would take "name", "descent", or "pedigree" as a parameter as well, defaulting to "name" if no parameter is supplied. In other words, the right path to rectify Marrtel's concerns is to rewrite/edit the template, rather than to delete it. Only one template is needed; once a single functional, flexible template is devised, the others can be reconsidered for conversion to redirects or deletion. - Nunh-huh 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's no more advertising than is {{
  imdb title}}. It's a useful template that happens to help link to some other site in less of a flexible manner than the nominator would like. That's not a reason for deletion. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - as the creator of the templates involved - I came across several hundred Wiki external links to this excellent reference website (with which I have no financial connection - I note that the complainant is using his Wiki username to advertise his personal website??) using a variety of different / unmanageable formats. If Genealogics had ever changed weblink format, then Wikipedia would have been stuck / over a barrel / etc. As it is, I was able to convert most of these links to a set of standard formats and apply the template, as per IMDB precedent. Now, should Genealogics ever change weblink format, we can change all those conformant links in one go. These templates were modelled on the IMDB ones, and I've not heard anyone call IMDB advertising?? I fail to understand the logic that "the template doesn't do as much as I want" -> "I should delete the template and re-work all the existing hundreds of links." It just doesn't work for me. "Harmful"?? I intended and I thought I provided ease of management for the existing links. BTW, Genealogics (an Australian-owned website - not American) used to have its own article in Wikipedia, but that seems to have been recently deleted. I would have thought that "(Genealogics..) is probably the largest reputable database of its kind freely available online" would have answered the question of notability but clearly not? For confirmation of this, see the opinions of professional mediaeval genealogists in the archives of the usenet group: soc.genealogy.medieval Ian Cairns (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that the "

Genealogics" article was speedy deleted on June 28th (though the article certainly seems to me to have indicate the importance and significance of the site), and the deleter then nominated the associated templates. Perhaps a deletion review is in order. I'll first ask the deleter to reconsider, then procede as needed. - Nunh-huh 00:10, 13 July 2008 (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.

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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pennsylvania TV Stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like its not being used. PageRadio1000 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template has been substantially expanded and put to use since the nom. --Thetrick (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template is redundant. --JB82^c 01:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Jgera5 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Grk1011 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2008 (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.

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 debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Index of Economic Freedom/Ranking 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1 off template I have already substituted. 1 use on 1 user page, target of 2 redirects. Thetrick (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, redundant and unused. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2008 (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.

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 debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Barnstar Of UserPage Editors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused barnstar last edited in 2007. Also, is it really

• Delete Judging by the picture, this might have been a joke. Regardless, unused and not useful. --Thetrick (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2008 (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.

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 debate was delete. Could never be complete. Categories or lists are better. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek Female Artists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Greek Male Artists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Greek Musical Groups (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for a template, this is what categories were made for. Garion96 (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. These could never be complete, or who wants to have a navigational template with thousands of entries in an article? Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. --Thetrick (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is useful since it ties all the Greek artists' articles together and provides links to other related articles for Greek music. With the argument that it can be in a category, then you could say that all or most templates could be in categories too in some way. Greekboy (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not the subject for a template but for a category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we vote to delete this template then we are voting to delete most templates on wiki. For example, one could argue that this is a category also. We should keep it because it is not being used as a category, but as a navigational instrument. In my opinion, categories are for organization while templates like this are to allow a reader to see other similar articles. We add articles as they are made. There used to only be one template, and then we split it into three as we added more articles. Soon when there are enough artists, it will be split again (pop, laika, etc). Since having "a thousand entries" was the problem, and it has been explained, the templates should be kept. Grk1011 (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories are navigational instruments as well. The other template you linked has a set and limited list of articles. The scope of this template is too large (even when split) and is already served by categories. Garion96 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you are saying that if I change the template to "Modern Laika Female singers" and ect. then it would be acceptable? (Modern Laika is a popular music genre in Greece that almost all singers sing, Greek traditional folk music mixed with modern sounds) Or "Greek pop singers" like it was originally? When we write Greek, we don't mean nationality, but music genre as a whole. If that is causing confusion, then we can change it to add a genre in the title like I proposed. Greekboy (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really. Since, as you say: "Modern Laika is a popular music genre in Greece that almost all singers sing" it still would not be suited for a template. Category:Modern Laika female singers however would be great, because this kind of selection is exactly what categories were made for. Garion96 (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how others feel, but it seems to me that categories are for more administration type dealings while templates like this are more user friendly and for non-editors who are just reading. Grk1011 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only that, but their really aren't that many other Greek singers out there notable enough to be on wikipedia. The template I think should stay. Greekboy (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories are exactly made for this kind of thing though. The singers only have in common that they are Greek and they sing. That is a good reason for a category, not for a template. And that is besides the fact that a category is easily maintainable and a template is not. For instance, if I wanted too, I could already add 25 more entries to the female artists template. Garion96 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that. The template used to be titled "Greek Pop" but we moved it so we could make it more useful. Also, what is the big deal, me and greekboy are the only ones who edit it and we obviously like it. I could see deleting if it was something that directly affected other peoples editing ability, but this doesnt. Grk1011 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That you like it is besides the point, the same with the fact that I don't like it. My thinking is: Is it useful for the readers. Which, of course, I don't think it is and that this template goes against what the use of templates are. Nevertheless, I doubt we will ever agree on this so just let the closing admin decide. Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are opening a can of worms. there's also Template:Turkish Pop and many more. Grk1011 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - this is a bad use of a template, as it links together a large, disparate group of people who may not have much in common with one another. These would be much better as categories, not templates. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. - it is selective and redundant
  talk) 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep against nom, this template is very useful to me because all of the singers in it are all similar Planecrazy22 (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are really helpful for everybody and especially for us. Navigation becomes more easily and also don't forget that some people worked very hard for all this project.You can't delete them without any serious reason besides your opinion that categories are easier . Panagiotis_2007 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.45.26 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpdick (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not think the reason for deletion is correct. This template serves as a great tool for easy navigation for these singers that sing the same kind of music. Wikiwow12 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (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.

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 debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mostly redlinked navbox for a band with one studio album. Thetrick (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - not enough useful links, and I doubt any of the redlinked articles will become sufficiently notable any time soon. Terraxos (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2008 (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.