Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 21

< November 20	November 22 >

November 21 edit

Template:Democracy Alliance 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is an unnecessary agglomeration of a large number of disparate organizations which happen to have received some funding from a group of liberal donors. The subject headings are unsourced and simplistic (since when was the Sierra Club just a "direct political action" group? Last I checked it did a lot more than that. People for the American Way is a "media and messaging" group? Who says? What's "messaging?") I believe this template will start an unnecessary trend of creating huge templates for every group that gives money to someone or the other. For example, I can just imagine the edit wars over slapping an ARMPAC template on every candidate who's ever received funding from the group. FCYTravis (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The groups included in the list receive funds from numerous sources, and it would be overwhelming if we had a template for every donor, especially a template as bulky as this one. Further, it's not clear how significant the donations were, or for what cause, so a large template gives them undue weight. Lastly, the source for these inclusions isn't specified. So it violates NPOV and V. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the invite to comment. If bulkiness is the issue, feel free to trim it down, but that's no reason to delete it. In addition, if the titles are overly simplistic, please help by clarifying them. The template is certainly not a final draft. If it's the content, I think this template does a great job of knitting together these various organizations. I believe it's well established that the Democracy Alliance is a notable group, and if it is the main donor to these organizations then knitting the articles together makes sense. If some of the organizations included do not receive most of their funding from the Democracy Alliance (this would almost certainly include the Sierra Club), by all means remove them from the template. I didn't assemble the organizations' names, I got them from the Democracy Alliance article. I don't claim for this to a be-all and end-all template, I am just trying to organize disparate information. I thought this template might be helpful. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I applaud the efforts of those documenting the Democracy Alliance, I'm afraid that it's just not a sufficiently significant factor in most of the templated groups and organisations to justify the use of the template on those articles. If it is kept, the sub-templates should be merged into the Template:Democracy Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to male it easier to use and less bulky when collapsed. --00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If there are organizations that receive more than half their funding from the Democracy Alliance, they should be listed and so identified in the Democracy Alliance article, and the article on each such organization should mention that its major funder is the Democracy Alliance. For other organizations, receipt of some funding from the Democracy Alliance isn't a sufficiently important fact to call for a template, even a less bulky one. JamesMLane t c 05:36, 28 November 2007 (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:Infobox animanga/Magazine 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is entirely redundant to {{Infobox Magazine}}. It is present only on one article. The only functionality it as is some automatic categorization, which can be added by hand. It is also more complicated to use since the editor has to add {{Infobox animanga/Header}} before and {{Infobox animanga/Footer}} after this template in order to keep it from breaking. This is fine with other {{Infobox animanga}} components since they are used in varying combinations with each other, but this template will always stand alone. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Sorry, Farix, but I'm really not sure what your problem is with this template. Although I normally prefer to keep templates standardized, there is no harm whatsoever in exploring another template option such as this, especially when more than editor has shown a desire to do so. If nothing comes from this, cleaning up the mess will be easy and painless, and I'll keep an eye on the usage myself to make sure of that. Taking this to deletion is a waste of time. A great deal of templates have grown organically like this, and there's no need to jump on something like this simply because you don't see where it's going. -- Ned Scott 08:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was under the assumption that {{Infobox animanga}} was supposed to be used for anime and manga, not magazines which publish such material. As such, the template has sub boxes such as {{Infobox animanga/Game}} for video game releated anime/manga adaptations or media, or {{Infobox animanga/Novel}} for novel related anime/manga adaptations or media, but this is merely a stand-alone box which cannot be used in conjunction with the other boxes, and I agree with Farix in that it would be harder to impliment the magazine box plus the use of the animanga header/footer combination instead of simply using {{Infobox Magazine}}.--十八 08:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Talk about bad faith, Farix. You didn't even bother to notify me that you'd nominated this. As Ned Scott indicates, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using this infobox for anime and manga related magazines as it will make them more consistent with the other manga and anime articles. I'm sure there are other instances of the header and footer being used with only one component of the set of anime and manga infoboxes (most likely with standalone anime or manga, where one or the other has never been made). And it's a simple task to make it used in more than one article. It's barely existed for a few days now. Give it a little time , already. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your's and Ned's accusations of bad faith on this nomination are utterly groundless. I've tried to engage you on the infobox's main talk page[1], but you never responded. So don't go complaining that you weren't approached to discuss the template beforehand.

Unlike {{Infobox animanga/Magazine}}, neither {{Infobox animanga/Anime}} and {{Infobox animanga/Manga}} duplicate any other template. And unlike {{Infobox animanga/Game}}, does duplicate {{Infobox VG}}, {{Infobox animanga/Magazine}} will not be used in conjunction with the other components. And I would also support using {{Infobox VG}} over {{Infobox animanga/Game}} if the article was dedicated entirely to the video game and not to video game, manga, and/or anime.

I really don't see the purpose or the usefulness of this template. It is entirely redundant to {{Infobox Magazine}} and offers no benefit to Wikipedia with the added complexity that doesn't already exist in {{Infobox Magazine}}. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I just don't understand why you feel the need to delete this template so fast. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to weasel your way out of the good faith requirement that you notify the creator of an article/template, etc., of an Xfd nomination. That's all I'm talking about here. As for the section on the Template talk:Infobox animanga page, I don't frequent that talk page at all, so you hardly went out of your way to make sure I knew you had questions. You barely gave it two days before making this nom, and you never once posted a comment on my talk page pointing out the discussion you were trying to have. I have almost 6300 pages on my watchlist, as well as plenty of other projects I'm handling here and elsewhere, so things slip by unnoticed on occasion. If you really want me to see something, post a quick note on my talk page. It'll take you all of 30 seconds.

Going back to why I created it: to make the articles consistent with other anime and manga articles. In order to avoid the added complexity of needing the header and footer, perhaps we could add a "standalone" switch to it which would automatically include them if it was marked yes. JJust throwing out ideas. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Farix was trying to trick you or anything like that. Even if I disagree with him in this situation, I don't think he'd do something like that intentionally. Also, I don't mean any harsh feelings towards Farix; though I am a little frustrated this was taken to TfD already, when it could have been a good chance to simply experiment and gather new ideas. I still understand Farix's rational for deletion (and in many other situations would agree with him). -- Ned Scott 05:22, 28 November 2007 (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:Chrono Cross character, et. al. 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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are among those designed to work in conjunction with {{General VG character}} to provide the in-universe information for video game characters. The ones listed here are unused, likely as a result of non-notable character articles being deleted or merged. Pagra shtak 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it were me, I would just redirect them all and call it a day. -- Ned Scott 23:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect them to what exactly? Pagra shtak 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, I read that all wrong. I thought they were replaced by General VG character, but now I see they are meant to be used with it. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 28 November 2007 (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:Warcraft 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one article, currently at AFD. The superior {{Warcraft universe}} can be used instead. — Pagra shtak 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one article's use can be switched to the overall (universe) template, making it deprecated & redundant @ that point. SkierRMH (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No longer needed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2007 (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:Warcraft Navigation 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta template used only by Warcraft templates that have now been deleted, mostly here. Now unused and unneeded. — Pagra shtak 16:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now unused, & the "universe" template should hopefully suffice for future articles on the genre/area. SkierRMH (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused, better one now exists. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2007 (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:Legendary Pokémon 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this template was useful in the past, the majority of the links in it are now redirects, due to Project Pokemon's merging of most of the articles into lists. Only 5 of the links go to individual pages, and I have a feeling 3 of those will be redirects soon as well. — - MK ( ^talk/_contribs ) 07:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possibly deprecated - without prejudice to changing if the articles current not redirects are kept 'as is'. SkierRMH (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BD2412 T 05:13, 28 November 2007 (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:Carolingians, Lotharingia and Italy 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is incomplete, unclear, and illogical. It exludes (three) Carolingian kings of Italy before Louis the Pious and (three) after Emperor Louis II. It excludes (at least three) Lotharingian monarchs after Lothair II. It is not clear who is king of Italy on the template or why there is a king of Provence in bold. Lotharingia is the name for a kingdom which detached from Italy and Provence following the breakup of Middle Francia, so it is not clear why they are together in a template. I cannot see how to improve it without making so ridiculously complex as to be unusable. It should be deleted. — Srnec (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dynastic template - a template of the family. The family branch was only divided with Lothair I; the kings after Lothair II and Louis II came from a different branch. To represent those later kings would imply they were of the same branch. Michael Sanders 13:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your disinctions between branches of the Carolingian family are artificial. They were one family, as seen by the fact that Charles the Fat succeeded in inheriting all the kingdoms. That's not a case of one branch coming to dominate another: Carloman II and Charles the Fat were not distantly related, but closely allied first cousins once removed. Srnec (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about dominance? They were related, but they were different branches of the family. Just like Henry IV of France - he was from the same family, but from the Bourbon branch, rather than the Valois branch. Michael Sanders 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "branch" is arbitrary and artificial. Why regard brother as being of the same branch? Do you think that each "nuclear" family is a branch unto itself, as your templates imply? Why shouldn't all the descendants of Louis the Pious be regarded as one "branch"? You have created "Template:Descendants of Lothair I". But what justification exists for such a thing? Should we have such descendant templates for every individual? You cannot just invent a template and arbitrarily label it the "Middle Frankish Branch". The Carolingian family is too complex for such "branches". Louis the Younger was offered the throne of Aquitaine before that of any other kingdom, is he part of the Aquitainian Branch? Shouldn't we divide the East Frankish Branch into Saxon, Bavarian, and Alemannic Brances? Srnec (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's as arbitary and artificial as division into 'houses' anywhere, and no more so. Why shouldn't all the descendants of Edward III be regarded as on 'branch'? Yet, House of York and House of Plantagenet. And the Carolingian family is no more complex than any other royal family - which are divided according to lines of descent, not what country they rule. As for your other points: no, Louis the Younger would not be part of the Aquitaine branch, i.e. the descents of Pippin of Aquitaine. The fact that he was offered the throne doesn't change who his parents were. And the direct descent of Louis the German ended with his grandchildren, except for the descent of the eldest son's son, Arnulf. So dividing it up again would be pointless, since you'd end up with e.g. Charles the Fat and Bernard alone in a table of descent. In such cases, templates are generally arranged to include the grandchildren (e.g. the Plantagenet and Capet tables, which show the grandchildren of Edward III and Philip IV). Michael Sanders 00:08, 22 November 2007 (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.