Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24 edit

Template:Weevils Stories edit

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While recurring monsters, they very rarely have more than a background presence in the series. Equate them with Grimlocks or Warlocks on Charmed, or vampires in Buffy, or chavs in Eastenders.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Their presence as a species is too minor to warrant their own stories template. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Edokter. Happy‑melon 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - particularly since the most recent episode is included here, and I don't recall Weevils being a significant plot element in it at all. But even if they had been, there would be no need for this template. Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't think that this template is really needed. Stuart DD _{contributions} 17:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless they become a more significant part, i.e. the Oweevil storyline comes to fruition or we learn more of their background - why they are wearing clothes, their hive mindedness, their home planet etc, then there is little need. They are not as prominent as say the Daleks in Doctor Who. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 09:39, 28 January 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.

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities Zenica edit

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use template that was replaced by {{Infobox Settlement}} —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, redundant. --Tone 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:54, 26 January 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.

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities02 edit

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use template that was replaced by {{Infobox Settlement}}. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, redundant. --Tone 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:55, 26 January 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.

Template:Wikipedia:Wikiportal/History/Intro edit

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it has been replaced by Portal:History/Intro two years ago. Unused now. — Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 as uncontroversial housekeeping. Happy‑melon 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G6--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has a considerable history, even if unused now. Archive it in some way, but do not delete. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to preserve the history and then delete. Green Giant (talk) 05:07, 26 January 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.

Template:RS cities edit

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Also, delete the talk page as it is not in English anyway. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. The talk page will be automatically deleted with the template. Happy‑melon 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G6 (Housekeeping) - --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:55, 26 January 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.

Template:ER to list entry edit

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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Happy‑melon 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial template only used as a means to mass delete episode articles while avoiding afds (via redirectification). The act of mass redirectifying episode articles lacks any kind of consensus behind it. —- Cat ^chi? 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - nomination is WP:POINTy, as there are practical uses for this template in good faith merges and redirections. Just because it can be used in mass redirects should not imply it should be deleted. --MASEM 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What point am I illustrating? A normal merge does not require such a spesific template. use the generic one then. -- Cat ^chi? 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  - The template is simply a courtesy template that helps to classify episode articles that have been merged. This can help track potentially questionable merges of episode articles, since it sorts them into a single category. There are similar specialized ones for other areas including comics and middle earth. And even if this template didn't exist, it does absolutely nothing to stop a mass merger. Might as well get rid of the entire redirection ability if the goal of the nomination is to remove a tool that enables mass redirections. --MASEM 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not think of it that way. Fair enough. Withdrawn. -- Cat ^chi? 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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:Stargate SG-1 edit

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template for in-universe team membership must have been orphaned for several months now as I have never seen it in use. – sgeureka ^t•c 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orphaned. JPG-GR (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... prod? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only articles, not templates, can be prod'd. JPG-GR (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet you nobody would contest the prod on those grounds. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the prod is invalid by its very definition? I'd beg to differ. JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of prod is that it never deletes anything controversial. A months-orphaned template is the very definition of a non-controversial deletion. The template could be prodded successfully by the simple virtue of the fact that *nobody whatsoever cares about it*. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, perhaps Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod would've passed consensus. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that at the moment, templates can't be prod'd. JPG-GR (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you can never take something from discussion to Prod, only the other way around, even where it applies (articles and userpages).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, redundant, unused. --Tone 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Happy‑melon 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two or three more delete votes and it will be WP:SNOW. (a free interpretation that does no harm here) --Tone 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant and unused, also very IU. Happy‑melon 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert episode blankings. Votestacking is ongoing here given I see similar dedicated faces. -- Cat ^chi? 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not really the case, here we discuss the deletion of an useless template. To address episodes, go to the wikiproject page. --Tone 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure what it's redundant to - nobody ever said - so I can't confirm that, but it is definitely unused and adds no value to the encyclopedia per #What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) ("So what's left . . . #1 and #3"). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot to its history, but I'd prefer some kind of archiving over deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancrufty trivia template, with no real use. Terraxos (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:14, 26 January 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.

Template:Stargate Planets edit

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged most planets for WP:FICT concerns into Planets in Stargate and/or the appropriate civilization articles, and folded the rest into {{StargateTopics}}. Thus, this template no longer serves a purpose. Already orphaned in article namespace. – sgeureka ^t•c 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated by {{StargateTopics}}. JPG-GR (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... prod it then? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't. Happy‑melon 13:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, redundant, unused. --Tone 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criterion? Happy‑melon 13:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 13:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot to its history, but I'd prefer some kind of archiving over deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant/deprecated. Terraxos (talk) 03:59, 26 January 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.

Template:Battlestar Wiki & Template:Memory Alpha edit

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 deletion of both. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have generally kept templates employing Template:FreeContentMeta in the past, the goal of this has generally been to promote other free content. However, the Battlestar Wiki uses CC-BY-NC-SA - we have historically taken a dim view of NC content, and do not consider it to be "free content" for the purposes of image use. We should probably take a similarly dim view of the NC clause in our promotion of free content and not elevate this particular wiki to the quasi-sister-project level, as that risks diluting the point of those boxes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I've added Memory Alpha to this nomination list - I had defended this template in the past, but it also has an NC clause, which means it ought be considered the same as the Battlestar Galactica one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary in light of {{memoryalpha}}, which has over 2000 usages, takes up less space, and is stylistically in line with other WP:EL templates. Same as previously, although if Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) feels CC-NC is sufficient rationale for doing so, I've no argument there. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though wording permitting these templates has remained stable at WP:EL and other relevant pages for about a month now. I agree that a Memory Alpha template is in order, mind you - I just don't think that the quasi-sister box one is the right one for it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither one is actually used in article space. {{Memory Alpha}} was never relinked anywhere after a DRV overturned its deletion about three weeks ago, and {{Battlestar Wiki}} isn't linked anywhere either. If there is a desire to link to Battlestar Wiki, a regular EL template can be created, like {{Imdb title}}. An EL template already exists for Memory Alpha, {{Memoryalpha}}. --Phirazo 03:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I've been meaning to put templates like these in wider use, but it's really an AWB sort of job, and I'm on a Mac. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phirazo. JPG-GR (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom. Happy‑melon 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand where Phil is coming from, given the NC "snag" on the licensing on those wikis. I wasn't totally bothered by it, and could see those templates being used for any wiki of reasonable quality, but prioritizing the use of such a template for wikis that are completely free by Wikipedia's definition seems reasonable to me. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same rationale as the last TFD. These templates are redundant to the subtler one-line versions, and there's no good reason to single out MemoryAlpha or the Battlestar Wiki from all other external links. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While we're at it, if these get deleted, the following probably should be up for TFD as well: {{TardisIndexFile}}, {{Wookieepedia box}}, {{BabylonProject}}, {{HarryPotterWiki}}. Terraxos (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those have previously survived TfDs, and they do not have NC clauses (in fact, I'm 90% certain all of those are GFDL) so no, those probably shouldn't be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all although we want to primarily link to free content, we want to link to all useful content that can be read without barriers. We link to millions of sites with NC-- and much more restrictive copyright. These templates help us do so in a standardized way for often-recurring situations. DGG (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notably, I support linking to the wikis. I just don't support sister-project-esque boxes - those should be used for free content that is, if not immediately compatible with our content, at least philosophically compatible and likely to be compatible once the GFDL/CC-BY-SA compatibility is made to work. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be a good time to mention the proposal at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis, which I sort of lost interest in the last few weeks, but have been meaning to follow up on. Any ideas or comments would be greatly appreciated. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 28 January 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.

Template:Wing Commander Craft edit

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous; all articles that had included this template have been deleted. — --EEMIV (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just prod this then? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can't PROD templates!! Happy‑melon 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All articles that could utilize this have been merged into Wing Commander (franchise). JPG-GR (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused and adds no value or encyclopedic content per #What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) ("So what's left . . . #1 and #3"). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:56, 26 January 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.