Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 31

< December 30	January 1 >

December 31

Template:Tanbo 9x9 Position

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, pending outcome of AfD. JPG-GR (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tanbo 9x9 Position (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken, unused. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G1: Patent Nonsense. Fleet Command (talk)
- Neutral. I'm having a second opinion. Looks like this a working template, although if you look at its template page, you just see a heap of junk. Fleet Command (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's used at Tanbo, and is not broken on my browser, at least. When transcluded and given the proper inputs, the template lays out a game board for that article. The article uses it three times, to lay out three different game layouts. Without the template, the code from it would need to be duplicated three times in that article to get the same result. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further comment, I have to wonder about the notability of the Tanbo article itself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not broken, and it's not unused. So long as the article exists, so should the template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I prodded Tanbo since it doesn't look notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, noticed that. Thus my last sentence above. --Bsherr (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article goes, so should the template. If it stays, so should the template. Enough said --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:53, 3 January 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.

Template:PanamaMonopolyBoard

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) 06:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, not likely to be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A beautiful piece of work indeed but Wikipedia is not a personal website wherein you keep your beautiful piece of work. This template is not a template at all (apart from the fact that it is template namespace). Fleet Command (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. It's not useful, nor is it a template. But it probably took a lot of time for the creator, so someone should see if they want it userfied. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia should not go into this much detail. Also possible WP:COPYVIO? Mhiji (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 22:47, 3 January 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.

Template:Places on a British Monopoly Board

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) 06:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Places on a British Monopoly Board (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only three articles. Seems an unorthodox way to navigate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the aim of a navbox is help reader navigate Wikipedia, this "thing" not only does not help the reader, but annoys him instead. It has no order and method and hence cannot be used as a mean of navigation. Delete it. Fleet Command (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia should not go into this much detail. Also possible WP:COPYVIO? Also it's not useful and just doesn't really look very good... Mhiji (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is already a version in Monopoly (game)#UK version that's much prettier (for want of a better word). --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:50, 4 January 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.

Template:Lazarus history

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. Navigates only three articles, and it doesn't seem likely that Herpolsheimer's would warrant an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this template and {{Foley's history}} (nominated below) into {{Macy's history}}. The content of this nominee can safely end up in parenthesis in front of the name Lazarus in {{Macy's history}}. Fleet Command (talk) 08:53, 3 January 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.

Template:HereNowUSMonopolyBoard

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) 06:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, doesn't seem like it will ever be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An admirable piece of work; but Template namespace is no place for such admirable pieces of work. In fact, the whole Wikipedia is not. Fleet Command (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia should not go into this much detail. Also possible WP:COPYVIO? Mhiji (talk) 11:58, 3 January 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.

Template:Filene's history

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 merge with Template:Macy's history Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filene's history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Even if Steiger's had an article this would only link two articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "See Also" section helps much better than this bulky unhelpful template. This template serves no purpose but to reduce the articles' aesthetic quality. Fleet Command (talk) 18:14, 1 January 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.

Template:Paddy Casey

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) 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paddy Casey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links only two articles so far. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The aim of a navbox is to aid navigation. This so-called "navbox" however, only annoys reader. Newcomers look at it and remain confused as to what it is. Fleet Command (talk) 18:04, 1 January 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.

Template:Foley's history

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foley's history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only links three articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this template and {{Lazarus history}} (nominated above) into {{Macy's history}}. The content of this nominee can safely end up in parenthesis in front of the name Foley in {{Macy's history}}. Fleet Command (talk) 08:55, 3 January 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.

Template:Dead end

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. Nominator withdrew support, no other proponents. Nonadministrator close. Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dead end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Dead end with Template:Wikify.
{{Dead end}} is now basically synonymous in everything with {{Wikify}} except name and scope. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 19:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not apparent to me that they are synonymous. Actually, it seems that "Wikify" is general and "Dead end" is specific. From Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Wiki tech, it can be seen that "Wikify" was intended to apply to a substantial set of issues for which more specific templates then further identify, much in the way Template:Cleanup serves this function for all cleanup templates. It doesn't make sense to single out "Dead end" any more than any of the other "Wikitech" templates. And I don't think a merge of any of the specific templates into the general one serves us, because it would prevent the more specific identification of "Wikitech" problems. --Bsherr (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikify is more cleanup related. While Dead End is more expansion related. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Bsherr that Wikify is more general, while Dead End is more specific. YardsGreen (talk) 08:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. But I'd support merging {{Dead end}} with {{Orphan}}. They are practically duplicates. Mhiji (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are opposite meanings. "Orphan" - no links coming in ; "Dead end" - no links going out ; 65.94.45.209 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is plain wrong because linking is not the only thing we mean by "wikify" - there's also text, list and table formatting. If there are more specific templates for those purposes, then it's fine, but I don't see them mentioned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn This obviously isn't going to merge, so I might as well. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you made clear what the new form of wikify will be. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 2 January 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.

Template:Eric Darnell

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) 18:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eric Darnell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links three films. WP:NENAN. Even more egregious in that Darnell has only directed DreamWorks Animation projects, which are already included in {{DreamWorks animated films}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought TFD allowed for deletion if a nomination was uncontested after 7 days? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:TFD, a template should be deleted if it "is not used… and has no likelihood of being used." While this template only links three films, it is still used, and since Eric Darnell is still alive and currently directing, it is very likely to include more links in the future. YardsGreen (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three films for an active director is enough for a template. Also those other templates should not have been deleted so quickly with only one response.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me what sense it makes to have the template, though, when he's only directed DreamWorks films and those already have a navbox. It's redundant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see why you say it would be redundant, but I don't think it is. To my way of thinking, one template is redundant to another if they are practically identical. In this case, the links within Films directed by Eric Darnell are a subset of the links within DreamWorks films, but the former also includes the information that this subset of films was directed by Eric Darnell. Since both templates contain some information that the other template does not contain, I don't think they're redundant to each other. Now, it could be that the Eric Darnell template just shouldn't be a template anyway. WP:CLN lists some guidelines for navigation templates. Eric Darnell doesn't strictly follow all of these guidelines, but in general, I think it's appropriate. YardsGreen (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Following the "rule of five" at WP:NENAN would seem to support deletion, since the template has only three links. However, he is working on Madagascar 3, which is already included in the "Dreamworks" and "Madagascar" templates, and could be included in "Eric Darnell" too. That would put us at four, and since there are more films he's directed, just no others that have their own article, I think it's reasonable to keep it around. I should also note that I don't feel really strongly either way here. I just don't see the need to delete it, and I think it's better to err on the side of not deleting. YardsGreen (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of what Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox (NENAN) says, this template is redundant because it can be completely replaced by {{DreamWorks animated films}}. The fact that the navbox attributes the films to Eric (while the replacement does not) is not a good reason to keep this template: Navbox templates are supposed to ease navigation, not to attribute movies; but this template only crowds the articles needlessly and thus deters navigation. Anyone interested in Eric Darnell's filmography can refer to his article, wherein he will find other films besides those listed in this navbox. Fleet Command (talk) 14:15, 2 January 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.

Template:Family Guy Movies and Special Episodes

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) 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Guy Movies and Special Episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded, not clearly defined template. what defines a "special episode"? Why is there only 1 "Road to..." episode, It appears an hour long is what qualifies as special CTJF83 chat 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally arbitrary inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Template:Family Guy, editing as necessary along the way. Certainly the "Laugh It Up" series is properly placed, at least. --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ctjf83's assertion. --Bsherr (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with merging this template. The episode in the template have already been listed in several others. There's no need for this. Railer-man (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is there to merge? Apart from the Star Wars episodes (which are already on Template:Family Guy) there is nothing special about these episodes. CTJF83 chat 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed that seems to be true. I've changed my position accordingly. --Bsherr (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded. Gage (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bsherr and Railer-man. YardsGreen (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything this template needs is in {{Family Guy}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no purpose!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:10, 7 January 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.

Template:Mac OS X HTML editors

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) 06:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mac OS X HTML editors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Superseded by Template:HTML editors. Fleet Command (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination, really didn't understand why Mac OS X have different templates for every purpose... mabdul 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:HTML editors. --Bsherr (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what good come out of redirecting it? All article that have {{Mac OS X HTML editors}} template transcluded also have {{HTML editors}}. See for yourself. We should get rid of transclusions in the end and so we'll end up with a purely useless redirect. Delete would be just fine. Fleet Command (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per FleetCommand's assertion. --Bsherr (talk) 17:57, 1 January 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.

Template:Steel Magnolia

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steel Magnolia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Currently links only four articles. Even if/when the third single gets an article, this is pushing it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a WP:NBFILL situation. It's a judgment call as to whether to create a navbox in a situation like this, but since it's been done, I don't think the need to delete it is especially compelling. This can only help with navigation between the articles. --Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about keeping or deleting it now, but some of the articles in it could definitely use a merger, especially singles. If a merger is done, the condition of this template would definitely change. Fleet Command (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why you're attacking templates now, TPH. I don't see any reason to delete these and then re-create them later on when an artist/band has multiple album and single releases. Why not just start now and add to it as they progress as well. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:49, 4 January 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.

Template:Ediot

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) 06:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is unecessary, as there is already the userbox "User-ED". And the content of this template is inappropriate. Also, there are no links to this template (this was only substituted in the template creator's userpage). I hope you understand me, this is my first deletion nomination and I am Brazilian. Samurai Bruxo (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused except on the page of its creator, who has made only one other edit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy on request. Essentially a userbox. --Bsherr (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is redundant per WP:TFD "reason to delete" #2. YardsGreen (talk) 08:36, 1 January 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.