Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 21

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) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rider Broncs depth chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and obsolete. None of the players on here even play for Rider anymore, and the creator had no intention of updating it. It's a maintenance nightmare and unused. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nick jr. live performances (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Provides no useful navigational information regarding the subject and that {{Nick Jr.}} doesn't already provide. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Department of Fun/Rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Assessment banner created for project that does not assess (and has no mainspace articles within its scope). See Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#Rating articles related to the Department of Fun for background. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nomination statement. While the creation was apparently done in good faith, there will never be a need for this template as the DoF's scope explicitly excludes the article namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

To be honest I am in favor of keep due to it linking the soundtracks and video games. It's more than the films which the Marvel Comics films has so it's not redundant. The characters linking is the less necessary and is the in-universe portion of it. I don't know why these type of navboxes focus on the fictional characters but not the actors who play them. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The films are the most notable aspect of this template, which are redundant with the existence of

Template:Marvel Comics films and I am not sold that the soundtracks and video games justify its existence. Also character navboxes are present in the film articles which again adds redundancy to this template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that the template is more necessary than

Template:X-Men film series, which has unnecessary links to minor characters, only three related video games and only two related soundtracks. I also think it is a useful way of linking the films, which basically only have one sentence in the only paragraph identifying them as being part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 124.183.160.155 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

A separate navbox to solely identify these films as being a part of the MCU is unnecessary as it is completely grounded in

Template:Marvel Comics films exists in much more real-world context.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm not so sure that, aside from the 'box's title, it's "in-universe" in tone. And there are similar 'boxes in use - {{
  X-Men film series}}, {{Spider-Man films}}, and {{1978-1987 Superman film series
  }} - for cross linking articles on the films in a specific series or set along with the the articles on spin-off media from, the characters adapted for, and the unique characters created for the films. I think there is room to 'keep thi template, but there are a few tweeks that need to applied:
  • The title needs to be changed "Avengers film series" may be more appropriate.
  • "Characters" should be changed to "Adapted characters". This should also be applied to the Spider-Man and X-Men template.
  • The common name of the comic book characters adapted should be used as well as linking to that base article.

- J Greb (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The title is fine per
  WP:NAME
  , "Avengers film series" is arbitrary.
• Why focus on the characters? Can we at least add directors, producers, writers?
• Should there be some limit to the adapted characters, maybe "recurring adapted characters"?

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do agree that the title is fine. I am not sure I consider it a real film series.
• That's a great idea. We should do it with the others too. And like I said the actors should be even more worthy than the fictional characters for once. Less in-universe that way.
• For right now there's not that many characters. If they got a article then I am ok with the inclusion for right now.

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Before you start adding the actors and such there is a consensus issue. The current consensus from the Actors workgroup under Bios is that it is not OK to pepper the bio articles with the navboxes. Basically it's the same reason we don't categorize people by project or employer - it may be a trivial or, at best, minor point within the person's article. The Comics Project hedges a little with the original creators in the things like {{Avengers}} or {{Batman}}. - J Greb (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah I would shy away from actors but creators (directors, producers, writers) do have some precedent in templates; {{
  Matrix}}.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I sort of agree with that statement. I just never really approved of the fictional character inclusion being that necessary. That's the in-universe part if there was an argument that a template was in-universe that is. To avoid the actor and go to the fictional character when the character isn't even a original character in that universe. And exactly how those templates you mentioned did it is the way I thought the creators should be introduced for I have seen it done that way before. This one probably has or will have a lot of creators though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small-ish clarification (and my apologies for this...): The WG I was referring to is Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. So the proviso covers almost anyone you would put in. And IIUC the exceptions are those cases where a good deal of the person's notability rests on having written, produced, and/or created a film or television show. - J Greb (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are buffets ever notable? If so, this can be kept... maybe. But, it's currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They aren't, in my opinion (unless a murder or something happened at one).

cup|former 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The parent article, Spice Market Buffet, was deleted as spam, the template author hasn't be active in over a year. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main factor of "make it or break it" is how many Wikipedia notable individual buffet locations there are. This template wouldn't serve any purpose unless one proves there are enough notable articles that could accommodate it. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Style OrganicBoxTD 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. Unused. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless template - all links redirect to Stropones (except for the hierarchy links). Not needed. Not used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Story Line of the Kurdistan Workers Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose and content unclear and unsourced. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fact template which doesn't make much sense. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nomination. Odd and unused. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  cup|former 17:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete per nom. & others. Unused and serves no apparent purpose.--JayJasper (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplicative, not standardized, useless. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:38, 25 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superseded by {{WCWPPV}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spring Awakening (musical) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be superseded by lists in the article Spring Awakening. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Rather obscure topic not worthy of a navbox;

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:24, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete, redundant to Template:Lüganuse Parish and others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Villages of Estonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and uncomplete template which will probably never be used because there are just too many ([1]) villages in Estonia. Flying Saucer (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. I don't even think villages are notable, so why have a template for their pages?

cup|former 17:49, 21 February 2011 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Otago (rugby) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 17:50, 21 February 2011 (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.