Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 10

< May 9	May 11 >

May 10 edit

Template:Kid Icarus series 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kid Icarus series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only contains two games and one character article Pit, which has already been redirected to Kid Icarus. A dablink on top of both the game articles can accomplish the same thing with the other game and series article (which will likely be merged). MuZemike 21:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with rationale, two games does not make a series necessary to need a navigation. Oh dear. Has it really been three years ago, back in 2006, with the SSBB trailer, that I thought, "Oh yes, Kid Icarus might be making a comeback!" Then again, it didn't happen with the Ice Climbers, either. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two games does create a series. Plus there are many series which may only consist of 2 games. So pretty much this template is relevant so I don't see anyway this should be deleted. --Victory93 (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Garion96 (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2009 (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:Future scientific facility 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future scientific facility (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This should (and usually is) be made clear on the lead and body of the article. No need for a template. Also, this template could be on an article for years (or more) see its use on Lunar outpost (NASA). Garion96 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same issue as all other "future" templates. This has been discussed and they have been accepted. See the Category:Temporal templates for a list of them.--BIL (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an attempt to shut down discussion. These future templates have not been accepted as a general class of thing, in fact many have been brought here and deleted. Flowerparty^☀ 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unnecessary. Flowerparty^☀ 12:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with most of the rest of the "this is a future foo" and "this is a current bar" templates. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2009 (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:Budgerigar mutation See also list 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 discussion was creator and only other contributor agree with deleted. T3'd. –xeno ^talk 13:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Budgerigar mutation See also list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Template:Budgerigar mutations}}. No longer needed. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trevor37 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2009 (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:Brooklands photo archive 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brooklands photo archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cite web}} ViperSnake151 Talk 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an extension to {{cite web}}, in just the same way that {{cite web}} is an extension to {{citation}} or the several templates for specific widely-cited newspapers are an extension to {{cite journal}}. It abstracts citations to one particular image archive (of which we have a significant number) so that they can be used more easily and more consistently. Templates aren't redundant when they're already in use across numerous articles, with scope for even wider use. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:T3, redundant/suboptimal hardcoded instance of another template. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#T3 specifies, "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, and are either: substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days."

This isn't an duplication of another template, it's a sub-classing of it. That's a perfectly reasonable role for a template, not the situation that WP:CSD#T3 describes. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2009 (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:Rlname 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 discussion was speedy deleted. Garion96 (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is not based in policy. I know it gives its advice in the form of a suggestion but this is very bad and dangerous advice. Telling new users to use their real name on Wikipedia is a very bad idea. You edit here for more than a couple months with your real name and some joker will start trying to track you down to argue with you or threaten you outside of Wikipedia(yes I have experienced this first hand).

Wikipedia does not encourage the use of real names. Most Wikipedians encourage people to do the exact opposite. New users following this template are likely to find themselves being trolled at work.

See related discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Template_to_consider_for_deletion Chillum 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as it's creator has agreed it should not be used at the other discussion. [1] Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2009 (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.