Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17, 2006 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gambling edit

Template:Gambling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wildly inappropriate, undefined and too general template would have hundreds, if not a thousand entries on it. Also ignores entire subcategorization of gambling categories. Template should be speedy delete. (Adding... also, while making a "Games" template would be similarly absurd, having templates at the level of appropriate categorization is what makes sense. Listing the ten or so Bingo-like games on a 1000 entry gambling template would help no one, but making a ten article Bingo template could be decently useful.) 2005 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You have connoted yourself that the page has potential and needs work. It is a great template and needs to be fixed up a bit. This user, it should be noted, blanked this template and deleted it from all of the pages containing it before putting it up for deletion; an outrageous thing for an editor of 2 years! → JARED ^(t) 21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make outrageous allegations. The template, among other inappropriate things, MISCATEGORIZES numerous articles (chosen apparently at random) that have been appropriately and often painstakingly categorized. Instead of focused subcategories, now a thousand articles will simply be thrown in the Gambling parent category in addition to their approriate subcategories. I removed the template from articles that are categorized in sub categories or in other categories. Please next time look at the situation before making "outrageous" statements. Categories exist for a reason. 2005 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Before I explain my reasoning, 2005, you did indeed blank the template in question. However, I do agree that there are far too many potential gambling games to fit in one template.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 22:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did blank it and I shouldn't have done that, prior to tfd'ing especially (although I was going to do tfd in a few minutes). I had a brainfart thinking blanking would remove it from thelisted articles that were now miscategorized. It took me a couple of minutes to figure out that was backwards and I had to remove the mis-categorization from each article instead. 2005 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What is a "type" of gambling? I'm here to vote because the template was added to backgammon, and backgammon isn't a type of gambling. Backgammon is a board game which is sometimes played for money, but doesn't have to be. The thousands of backgammon matches on FIBS, for example, are played merely for fun and for the pride of rating points. Similarly blackjack and poker are card games, not types of gambling, because both can be played without money, but neither can be played without cards. If the definition of a "type of gambling" is an activity where people bet money on something, then let's be sure to include hot-dog eating, weather forecasting, interest rates hikes by the Federal Reserve, and the price of tea in China. Or let's delete a non-useful template. --Fritzlein 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that this would be an inappropriate and useless template to add. The gambling articles are well-organized into categories and sub-categories already, and this template adds no value and will potentially become a huge mass of confusion. Rray 01:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potentially confusing, irrelevant, and its purpose is better served by categories. A lot of games are gambled on in various ways... Where to draw the line? Grand master ka 02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even about what it claims to be about: betting on sports events, dice games, card games, are all types of gambling. Cleanup is not appropriate as there are so many types, and so many that don't fit comfortably into types, that the template will remain confusing IMHO. Better handled by categories. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossibly too broad and better served by categories. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 21 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. — Jun. 17, '06 [18:31] <freak|talk>

Template:Prod edit

Template:Prod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Template:afd1, and encourages deletion without discussion because it lacks a link to the deletion discussion page. The Crow 18:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. {{prod}} is established by the WP:PROD policy. Misza 13 ^{T C} 18:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as part of current deletion policy. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:30, 17 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 17:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denmark u21 squad edit

The UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 is finish ka la ha 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The competition is finished. Three days ago. I would normally advise to keep it longer, but since it's an U21 comp, and few people care about that sort of thing. It won't be missed much. Maybe the players whose page it appears on could be added to the Denmark version of Category:England under-21 international footballers. SLUMGUM yap stalk 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
move discussion to TFD - this doesnt belong at AFD. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 08:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved this from AfD to TfD. The comments in the AfD are above. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a note on all player pages concerning the tournament. While this template is uneeded it still has history which should be preserved, just not in template form.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 02:00, 18 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 00:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User lancerfan edit

Subst and delete as failing WP:N. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. —Mi r a 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Only used on one page. --StuffOfInterest 13:37, 19 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic order edit

Delete Templates like this are supposed to help make it easy to find stuff. This fails at that on so many levels. -- Ned Scott 09:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck! Delete and use Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies instead. —Mi r a 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it too long, it is a partial list, which makes it even less useful.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't waste (plain delete) but Replace by complementary templates (shorter and more specific, but interliking) as proposed on its Talk page Fastifex 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Replace. The template overwhelms most of the pages as is. There are approximately 2,000 congregations that currently exist. Not counting the defunct ones. Williamb 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --mtz206 (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Relist, lost in process --William Allen Simpson 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bee Train edit

Template:Bee Train (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bad nav template. Templates should be made for, say, a group of work where it's very obvious why they'd be grouped together. When I think of .hack, I don't think of Tsubasa Chronicle, or Noir. This might be something for the See also sections of articles, but definitely not it's own nav template. If more nav templates are made like this.. it could get messy.. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proposed the template on the talk page and since no one really cared about it, I just went ahead and created it. Moreover, I assume, you don't think of Bald: The Making of 'THX 1138' when you think of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, do you? :) Yet, {{George Lucas' films}} isn't nominated for deletion. Neither are {{Uwe Boll Films}}, {{Alfred Hitchcock's films}}, {{Clint Eastwood}}, {{Roman Polański}}, etc. Here are more examples. --Koveras

09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas's relation to his films is a lot more significant and known than Bee Train (I stress the known part, as nav templates are for navigation). Same with the others, especially Hitchcock! And actually, I DO think of THX when I think of Star Wars.. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, like I said, if you want to show the relation between the different series, this should be done with the "See also" section, that's what it's there for! A nav template isn't supposed to be "oh, also, you might find this interesting", but rather, "These articles are directly related to this article". -- Ned Scott 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still say keep. :) --Koveras

14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's good to know what other series Bee Train has made, and this template does the job properly. Kazu-kun 22:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is good to know, but that's not what a nav template is for. This is needless article clutter and ugly. The template is poorly formatted and takes up more space than it needs to, even if it was useful. There's a section called "See also", that's where these notes should go. I see that you are new to Wikipedia? There are many ways to reference information, and there are many ways to make nav templates. Nav templates are supposed to only be used when there is a group of articles concerning one subject. It's also needless, as much of the .hack nav is already done by the .hack nav template. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree: it's page clutter--Brownlee 11:41, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AI person edit

Delete, unused. --Dom thedude 0 0 1
Delete. Template:Infobox musical artist 2 is used instead.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too specific, and like somestranger pointed out, it is not like there is no similar infobox. p00rleno 18:47, 18 June 2006 (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 page.