Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 August 24)
< August 23 August 25 >

August 24 edit

Template:1996 Florida Marlins roster 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) 05:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1996 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1993 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1994 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1995 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1997 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1998 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1999 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2000 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2001 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1975 Boston Red Sox roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1995 Cleveland Indians roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneccessary templates. These rosters are already included in the team season pages. Separate templates are not needed or used. Spanneraol (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information is centrally located in the team season page, as is appropriate, and the templates do not have any need for transclusion onto any other pages, thus negating the need for a template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to what is already available on team season pages. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and following votes. Even were they still transcluded on their page, guidelines dictate that templates designed only for use on a single page should be avoided. -Dewelar (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. -- Ϫ 04:37, 25 August 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:DisturbingImage 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 Delete under WP:CSD#T2

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

Not in use. Tied to defunct, rejected Wikiproject. (Full disclosure: I am the one who marked the project as rejected, but it is clearly rejected.) Violates NODISCLAIMERS and arguably NPOV. Mike R (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete T2. --RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or speedy delete. It's only transclusion is on the resoundingly rejected policy proposal, where I wouldn't object to it being substituted first. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as misinterpretation of policy. The T2 criterion even has "disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles" as an example. Jafeluv (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this abomination. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 25 August 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:Bangladeshi cricket seasons 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bangladeshi cricket seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sri Lankan cricket seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox contains one link and eight redirects, all of which link to the same article. It is pointless to have navbox that only links to one article, so I propose that this navbox template be deleted. {{Sri Lankan cricket seasons}} is in a similar situation, only with more redirects. – PeeJay 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC) See update below.[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Francium12 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should point out that, should articles on individual seasons in Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan cricket ever be created, I would not be opposed to the recreation of these templates. – PeeJay 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – the whole point of these templates is that it is the intention of WP:CRIC to create individual first-class season articles on a worldwide basis in due course. Rome was not built in a day. The templates are quite harmless, especially compared with some of the utter rubbish you see on the site generally and within the cricket project itself, and will be useful when one of us does get around to splitting the main Bangladesh and Sri Lanka articles into individual seasons. Deleting them now to recreate them later is illogical and serves no good purpose whatsoever. This nomination serves to emphasise the complete lack of vision, direction and common sense that has always been evident in these deletion processes (especially the categories one). --Jack | talk page 06:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What serves no good purpose is for users to click on a supposed navigation link that just takes them back to the top of the article they are already reading. To have an entire box of such links is ridiculous. "Rome was not built in a day" is a bit of a thin argument considering that this template has existed for over two and half years. --RL0919 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Re the Bangladesh template, all eight of its entries now link directly to individual articles which I have very easily set up within the last hour. I will do exactly the same for the Sri Lankan articles next time I'm on the site. I would suggest that some people need to think about actually doing something to help the users rather than sitting in one of these ridiculous deletion sessions and pontificating about supposed navigation links. There is nothing to prevent RL0919 from getting involved and doing something to remedy the situation, as I have done. All of which serves good purpose for the users. --Jack | talk page 17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. The Sri Lanka template now links directly to ten individual articles and I have deliberately redlinked the other nine, which I will set up tomorrow. It seems that this nomination is dead in the water. All that was needed was a bit of effort and furthermore the concerns should have been discussed first at WT:CRIC. This whole episode shows exactly what is wrong with these bureaucratic deletion processes, especially when you get the inhabitants of these pages wittering about good purpose instead of actually doing something positive for a change. --Jack | talk page 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concern that prompted the TfD has been addressed, so I'm changing my !vote. With actual articles, this seems to be an ordinary and helpful navigation box. By the way, I think the TfD process worked quite nicely: it prompted an editor with relevant knowledge to address something that had apparently been left on the shelf for years. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn - I'm disappointed that it took a TfD to inspire the creation of those articles, but at least they got done. Not that this nomination was intended for that purpose, but I believe the ends have justified the means. Btw, Jack, instead of creating pre-emptive navboxes, wouldn't it have been more prudent to create an article in someone's userspace with a list of all the articles that need creating. That way you can keep track of the redlinks as they gradually become bluelinks. – PeeJay 23:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The articles were created originally ahead of the templates, about three years ago, but they were bare stubs and no one was prepared to do the necessary to expand them. It was decided that the two history articles should be expanded to incorporate seasonal summaries, the stubs all being redirected, and I suppose no one even bothered to look at the templates. The same thing happened across most of the other Test playing countries except England where the seasonal articles had been developed. However, some work has been done since then to expand seasonal reviews of the other countries. My last word is that it is always best to refer any problems with cricket articles to WT:CRIC first, not to one of these processes and certainly not to the categories one. --Jack | talk page 05:02, 26 August 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:RoundTemplate 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) 05:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:22, 24 August 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.

Expand language template family edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

  Deferred Wikipedia talk:Translation#RfC: Expand language template family - Should editors be encouraged to translate interwiki articles?

Template:Expand language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Expand language template family (Template:Expand language, whereas "language" can be either language of another wikipedia) encourages editors to expand the tagged articles by translating a distinct article from another wikipedia. That strikes me as a call to ignore all content-related wikipedia policies, as it implies that the interwiki text (and thus its invoked translation) stringently follows WP:V and WP:NPOV. The template is encouraging editors to use wikipedia as a source.

If the other wikipedia article pointed to by the template actually has good sources, a mere translation will not ensure that the sources are properly represented - one has to read and evaluate them anew to ensure compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and if one has done so, a translation of the interwiki is superfluous as one should then be able to write the same in one's own words even better. If the interwiki-sources are however not good, misrepresented or missing, a translation of the interwiki-article eventually does harm to this wikipedia. An example is Karl Frenzel, where the template encourages editors to translate a completely unsourced article.

In a nutshell, the "Expand language" templates only work under the premise that the interwiki articles are written according to the en.wikipedia policies, based on sound sources which are properly evaluated and presented. This hoever can not be taken for granted, and most certainly many interwiki articles flunk that as do many en.wikipedia articles. Even if the interwiki article is a FA, one can not unconditionally trust that WP:V and WP:NPOV are fulfilled, there or here.

Thus, the template family must be deleted. Alternatively, the template family must be radically converted into an unobtrusive template family proposing to check what interwikis there are and what sources they use - which in my view would be useless overtagging. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)/Skäpperöd (talk)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This nomination is based on the unfounded assumption that encouraging the use of a source for material means encouraging editors to "unconditionally trust" it. If there is any real concern over this, the easier solution would be to add a reminder line to the template regarding the importance of WP:V, etc. (For example, "Translated material should conform to English-language Wikipedia policies, such as verifiability and neutral point of view.") In extreme cases, a disclaimer could also be added to the template page, as is done for {{Expand Indonesian}}. These solutions would be far preferable to deleting the templates. But I see no evidence that any concerns have even been discussed on the talk pages for {{Expand language}} or {{Expand language (non-Latin script)}}, which are the master templates affected by this TfD, so the entire concern may be a non-issue. Also, I want to note that the nomination so far isn't following the TfD process appropriately: over 90 templates (per Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates) would be affected, but they are not listed in the nomination, nor have they been tagged regarding the proposed deletion so that interested editors will know about the TfD. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unfounded assumption" - The template reads Please expand this article with text translated from the [interwiki article]. It encourages translation, nothing else. If you want people not to translate the other article, but evaluate the other article's sources and add what may be missing per WP:V and WP:NPOV, then have a template that says so - the current template is nowhere close to that. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was exactly that you assume that something not said is being said. If specific encouragement is needed, then it would be very easy to add such encouragement to the template, just as I describe above. It's just text. Since the main templates are protected, put an edit request on the talk page of the template for the desired additions. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand there are problems with both the templates (they should perhaps go on the talk page) and the process they imply. The deeper questions posed are:
  1. How do we best marshal our resources?
  2. While WP is not a "Reliable Source" and in general open wikis are not, this is a philosophical point to some extent. Firstly introducing unsourced material is nothing new (and "Reliable Sources" are often wrong anyway)- but the criteria is verifiability - on which we can expect the content to be judged in the same way as other content. Furthermore expecting someone to translate and check the references is no more realistic than expecting someone to copy-edit and check references. It is a fundamental problem of citing references that unless they are traced back they have no more guarantee of supporting the claim, than an unreferenced fact has of being supportable. This I and many others have discovered when following up footnotes in books. Here we are into the area of some kind of reference verification, which is the job sub-editors once did, but is now largely ignored as far as I can see, both in the big wide world and in WP. But again, when I created a new version of an article by editing, it I inherit the previous cites, just as if I translated it. In both cases we can see the citer, and we have the same recourse, pretty much, to dealing with problems. Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note that translation of articles across wikis has been encouraged for years. Any general concerns about unrealistic assumptions in the sourcing policies should go to WP:Village pump, not a template TfD. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nominator appears to be arguing that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be translated from one language to another (and that eliminating the tags would put a stop to this). As RL0919 noted, this is a longstanding, consensus-backed practice, and seeking to delete these templates (which are merely tools that assist in the process) is not an appropriate or practical means of addressing the above concerns.
    The templates would be deleted if there were consensus to discontinue the underlying practice, not the reverse. In other words, this matter does not fall under the purview of TfD.
    For the record, I strongly disagree with the nominator's basic premise, but my recommendation that this discussion be speedily closed is based entirely upon my belief that it far exceeds TfD's scope and should be relocated to a different forum. —David Levy 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What forum do you propose instead? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919 pointed you to the village pump. Another option would be to initiate a request for comment (with Wikipedia talk:Translation as the discussion location). —David Levy 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my suggestion of the village pump was for some more general concerns that Rich Farmbrough raised. I think Wikipedia talk:Translation would be the best place to discuss any concerns particular to translating articles from other Wikimedia projects. --RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per David Levy - deleting its templates isn't the correct venue to object to an established process. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:East Asians in the UK 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Asians in the UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not required given the existence of Template:AsiansinUK, which covers these groups perfectly adequately. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I suppose it may have been created to ease navigation, but it is having the opposite effect --- some of these articles have three or four largely-redundant footer nav-templates, which just makes things even more confusing. cab (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to the other, more widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:20, 30 August 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:18 Candles 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 delete NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:18 Candles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not used and never will be used. Generated by a user to advertise his own band. User has been warned regarding creation of unsuitable pages such as this. Not sure if any speedy criteria apply so using TfD instead. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the band doesn't even have a presence on Wikipedia which the template could be used for. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:13, 24 August 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:Start date 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus has it that date auto-formatting is depreciated. -- User:Docu at 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously dates were wikilinked which provided standarized (CSS) markup for all dates, including autoformatting to display dates in whatever format one prefers.
It was decided wikilinking dates was too much overhead and depreciated.
The CSS formatting could have been kept without providing autoformatting or (blue displayed) links, but consensus has it that there was no consensus for such a solution. By using a specific template such as {{start date}}, this type of formatting is re-introduced. -- User:Docu at 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC), edited 03:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: template does not do auto formatting as far as I know, it only adds the microformat hidden CSS stuff, and considering a bot was recently approved to go through and implement this template in hundreds of film articles and episode lists, its function seems to have consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is one of the templates used for adding microformats to thousands of articles. The auto-formatting links were removed last year.[1]. And with the "df" parameter, one can specify whether to display the date with the Month before day or the day before the month. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have again verified it using the Special:ExpandTemplates tool and changing the options of the date format on my Special:Preferences - The template currently does not display any autoformatting or (blue displayed) links. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The Flash {talk} 02:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what purpose does it really serve? just as simple to enter the dates. Most edittors don't even know the template exists. Just one mroe thing to cause arguements between edittors over 'style' Alan KC 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    As stated in my previous comment, the template is being used to help add microformats to articles. In other words, it will enable other software to easily extract specific data from the pages for indexing purposes. It has nothing to do with style. It is a more maintenance/cleanup type of feature that several dedicated editors are adding. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is not for auto-formatting (which I myself removed a year ago). — RockMFR 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template:Start date#Usage explains what the template is for and it isn't for "date auto-formatting" (as explained above). - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Microformats are the future. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Aside from the issues already discussed, the nominator obviously has a flawed understanding of the history behind "date auto-formatting".
    — Ω (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and WP:SNOW. The nominator misunderstood the purpose and effect of the template. —EncMstr (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template is not used for auto formatting, but is used to add microformats. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep Heavily used template, proposed for deletion on palpably false grounds, presumably as WP:POINT because Docu dislikes its us in {{Infobox Lake}}. Aside: good to see so much support for microformats; please see WP:UF for details of how to help deploy them ion Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per multiple parties above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 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:R from character 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 redirect to Template:CharR to list entry. JPG-GR (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to older and more widely used Template:CharR to list entry -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this template, not being aware of the other one, however being the creator doesn't affect my argument. We only need one of these certainly, but this one is a much more logical title. Nearly every other redirect classification template is in the form "{{R from XXX}} (or {{R to XXX)". Furthermore, not every character that is redirected goes to a list. As such, I think the best course of action would be to redirect the other template to this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other template is more well used, more specific, and more useful in that it auto categories items by series. It also is more specific. Most characters are redirected to a list entry, either a standalone list or a character list in a main article. Otherwise, the more general R from merge should be used. I see no valid reason to rename the other, which was created after extensive discussion, per consensus, and following several similar other templates for episodes and other fictional elements. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from merge}} should be used when ever a merge is performed, in addition to whatever other R templates apply. Not every redirect is the result of a merge though, and the merge template shouldn't be used if a merger didn't take place.
As to why the older template used to redirected/renamed, it is because the name is inconsistent with virtually other R template and is not anyway intuitive. What is the reasoning for not having it be in the normal R from/R to naming scheme? (Incidentally, it isn't listed at the list of redirect templates which is why I had no idea it existed. That will obviously need fixed at the conclusion of this discussion.)
I do see that it provides some additional functionality (automatic sub-categorization). Given that, the CharR template should either be renamed and made to include the possibility of not pointing to a list, or a separate template should be retained for characters that don't point to a list. I don't what to use a template that says it points to a list when it doesn't, nor do I want to use a template that says it was merged if it wasn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need to rename the existing template nor to try and merge a more well used template into a lesser used ones. As this one lacks CharR's functionality, what purpose does it actually serve that is not already met by existing templates. Also, that list is far from complete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fairly complete to me, which others are missing? -- Ϫ 02:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are 158 redirect templates. I'd estimate that list has maybe 30 or so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believe the list has most of the actual ones, with the other being redirects to redirect templates, but I could be wrong. In any case, the list should be made complete as otherwise it is very difficult to find out a give R template exists. This, of course, is not a matter for discussion here though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also had no idea the CharR template existed and agree that there should only be one, so I'm fine with deleting just as long as all the redirects get consolidated into one category under one template. But I also agree with ThaddeusB that it should conform with the usual R from/R to naming scheme. -- œ™ 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are three Templates for redirects relating to fiction, that are part of the set of templates for redirects to articles. They were created in January 08 in response to the desire to categorize and more clearly mark characters/episodes/etc that were merged per consensus from individual articles to lists after a lot of discussion between the Anime/Manga and Television projects where the bulk of these were being handled. I can see the argument for renaming those three to match other R templates, though the existing names were done at the time to differentiate them from one another. I'd guess they could be renamed to something like R character to list entry or something similar. However, it seems like ThaddeusB feels this template serves a different purposes and should be kept in conjunction with the CharR now that he knows about it as it is for general character redirects rather than redirects to lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My ideal solution would be to have one template that incorporates the functionality of CharR but doesn't say "to a list". Instead of categorizing to Category:XXX character redirects to lists it would categorize to Category:XXX character redirects or Category:redirects from characters of XXX. Is there any reason knowing it points to a list is important? If not I fail to see any problem with this change. The CharR template could be moved over the top of {{R from character}} and the auto-categorization changed. The same could be done for other fictional elements: "R from fictional element" and "R from episode". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure this TfD is the place to discussion renaming the existing templates, versus the whether this template should be deleted. However, as it seems like this discussion will occur here, I've notified the three projects involved in their creation (forgot the video game project in my note above). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 August 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:Playstation.com (relisted) 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 wos title and relist the rest for further discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playstation.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ttg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wos title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Xbox achievements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Xbox.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this discussion, these templates fail WP:EL in that they don't provide sufficient information to warrant including the link in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete some, neutral on the others. The Playstaytion.com and Xbox.com templates link to pages that sell the games, which is clearly out per WP:ELNO, and the Xbox achievements site apparently requires registration, which is also discouraged for linking. So I endorse deleting those three for sure. The other two go to gaming sites that I don't know enough about to pass judgment on their appropriateness. I'm neutral on those two. --RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Playstation.com}}, {{Wos title}}, and {{Xbox achievements}}; keep {{Ttg}} and {{Xbox.com}}. For the first three I mentioned, users will be unable to view playstation.com at all if scripting is disabled. For World of Spectrum, we don't link to search results, so I cannot see the need to facilitate a template used for linking. For Xbox achievements, you need to have an account and sign in to access anything, which clearly goes against WP:ELNO. For the other two, they look like valid usage of external links in that they can be included. MuZemike 06:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Playstation.com, Xbox.com, Xbox achievements, Neutral on the rest. I fail to see what the issue is for listing a game's official Sony or Microsoft page for it's respective platform. Yes, you can buy it there, but you can also buy it from the site the developer sets up as well. It's not as if PlayStation.com or Xbox.com are 3rd party sites operated by people unrelated to PlayStation and Xbox consoles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Xbox achievements since it requires a login and Wos title since it links to search results. — RockMFR 20:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oy, judging from the WT:VG discussion I linked, I didn't think individual ones would be so contentious. Would it be better if I withdrew this and nominated them individually? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:06, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_24&oldid=1138693335"