Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 7

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 Userfied, redirect from template space deleted per R2. Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daniel M Curtin - Human Resources Consultant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is not now nor is it likely to ever be used as a template. It is an article in template space. As an article, it would be subject to speedy deletion (

• Delete as per nom.
  talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• R2 Is now a redirect to userspace from template space. Content was userfied. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:19, 8 September 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. Pagrashtak 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box one to one (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use. It has been a REDIR to {{

• Use CSD:T3.
  talk) 13:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, it qualifies under
    talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I've raised the question about this speedy criterion over at

talk) 17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Alkari (?), 8 September 2008, 01:05 UTC
• Delete unused redundant template. Additionally, CSD:T3 is a very poor criteria, I can't imagine any instance when using it over a TfD is preferable. ~ AmeIiorate
  T C @ 06:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - as per nom. I don't know if things have changed, but I used to nominate most of my old, unused templates using CSD and I rarely had any problems and it never took 7 days. Often it only took 3 or less. Hence why it is called speedy deletion, it is faster as long as their is no dispute.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 06:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CSD:T3 states, "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion ... may be deleted after being tagged for seven days." ~ AmeIiorate

T C @ 06:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. It's just an old redirect, with no use anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What's more to add? (desperately tries to avoid saying "per nom") Delete with haste. Waltham, The Duke of 00:39, 13 September 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 - but there are still several transclusions. I am thinking documentation somewhere is still directing people to use this so I will list this in the

Template:S-awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use. All uses have been replaced with {{

• Delete if all uses have been replaced, no use in keeping this one. --Ged UK (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to redirecting but I suggest someone check the links in talk pages. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both article talk pages have had the reference to s-awards nowiki'd, and a ref to s-ach added. All the user talk pages and user pages linking to the template, and editors of the template had a tfdnotice stuck on their user talk pages. Hope that satisfies your concerns.
    talk) 17:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete no need for it to take up any extra space on here if everything is at s-ach, although a redirect might be a good thing. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a cover for {{
    talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete; best to simplify the succession-box system as much as possible and an unused redirect doesn't really help. Alkari (?), 8 September 2008, 01:13 UTC
• Delete to keep the succession-box system simple. ~ AmeIiorate
  T C @ 06:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - What a happy day to see this template finally removed. This and "s-ecc" were the most persistently annoying left-behinds of the early days of WP:SBS and I am glad to vote "delete" on this once and for all.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 06:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The last loose ends have been tied up; time to remove this template from sight. Waltham, The Duke of 00:51, 13 September 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 all --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

These are four completely unnecessary and excessive templates. WSJ has run dozens of titles in its decades long history. This is not appropriate template material, it is list material which is already well covered by List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump. The currently running series are already better covered with the more focused Template:Series in Weekly Shōnen Jump. These templates do not add any value to their respective articles, and do nothing but crowd articles that may already have 1-3 templates on them. No other magazines have a template covering every last title every included, and I do not think WSJ needs on either. It sets a bad precedent for creating other such templates, such as one for the American Shonen Jump, Shojo Beat, and the dozens of other manga anthologies currently or previously in-print. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I created all those templates because I need a means to keep track of many of the Jump series that don't have templates. Many series were being given the "current Jump template" that haven't been in the magazine for twenty, even thirty years. I figured that by creating templates that would link them to their appropriate period, we would have a means to at least have something for them to keep track of and connect to the magazine. The only other way that we could do that is creating a category but somehow I imagine that if I did that then that would be deleted as well. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A category would be a much more appropriate way of creating such a link. If the current Jump template has out of date information, the solution is to maintain that template. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe StrangerAtaru was referring to the fact that the current template is being placed on series articles when those series have not been run in several decades, which means that the usage is incorrect, not that the template needs to be updated. That being said, perhaps these templates could be merged into the current one? They seem to only be major series (not that I would know), and it would help cut clutter by just that much. —Dinoguy1000 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I've seen, its every series run during that time that we have an article for, with only the redlinks removed.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Grouping the SJ series we have articles on by decade is a perfectly fine use of a navigational template, as the notable series which ran in a given period constitute a well-defined subject. These templates also give some much-needed
  featured topics. (e.g. "Weekly Shonen Jump manga, 1980-85", "Lists of Weekly Shonen Jump manga", "Major Weekly Shonen Jump manga titles"...) --erachima talk 05:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I like the idea of a "Major Jump series" list, but my problem with that is that if we go by five year periods, what would happen to those series that were equally important but lasted less time? There are series such as Death Note or Barefoot Gen which don't have the same amount of time in the magazine but are just as important in the history as stuff such as Dragon Ball, Fist of the North Star or One Piece. I think if we want to make a "Major Jump series" list, we need to create criteria that exhibit what makes these series crucial to the knowledge and understanding of WSJ as a magazine. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All. As erachima states, this is a perfectly legitimate way to have navigation between related article (related because they appeared in the magazine at the same time or in the same time period). Having smaller lists by decade is an excellent way to keep the navigation list from getting out of hand. I also agree with the crosslinking point. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:13, 18 September 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.