Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25 edit

Template:Infobox Buddhist biography 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 merge. JPG-GR (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Buddhist biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox religious biography}} into which any necessary fields should be merged. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with {{Infobox religious biography}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:32, 2 September 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:Treviso FBC squad 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 as unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Treviso FBC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Football squad template for a team that does not exist anymore. The club was excluded from professional football on July 2009, and all of its players were indeed released. Angelo (talk) 21:03, 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:Damages (TV series) episode 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) 06:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Damages (TV series) episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan and unecessary Magioladitis (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{Infobox Damages (TV series) season episode list}} is the depended template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Replaced with {{Infobox Television episode}}. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused and redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 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:Myth2 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) 06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Myth2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very old template created for obsolete classification process. If this was ever a current project, it's long since been replaced by WP:QUALITY. Only used on three articles. Robofish (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, old and obsolete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:28, 28 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:Future film 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 nomination withdrawn. Garion96 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A large discussion to deprecate "Future" templates has concluded with the overwhelming consensus to go through with the deprecation. In the case of this particular template, it was argued that the article should reflect whether or not a film has come out yet, particularly in the lead section. (E.g., "Foo is an upcoming 2009 film...") The template has more served as a placeholder than an actual indicator of swiftly changing information. (Most film articles, in my experience, do not "explode" in growth upon the films' release.) The template populates upcoming films in the Upcoming films category, so I ask whomever mass-removes the templates to ensure that the category is re-added to these articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to withdraw. There is a larger discussion about implementing the deprecation of the templates, and I'm afraid I jumped the gun here. I would like to withdraw on a procedural basis (nothing to do with the !votes so far) to permit discussion about widespread action. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that "the template has more served as a placeholder than an actual indicator of swiftly changing information. (Most film articles, in my experience, do not "explode" in growth upon the films' release.)" In general, articles about films with mass appeal expand constantly during production as news about it reaches the media, and once they open a lot of reviews and box office figures are added to the article. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that there is such a trend. There are some films that have fan bases whose fans contribute to the articles, but this does not apply to all films with mass appeal. Even if a film is popular and performs very well at the box office, this does not equate a conscious effort to expand the article. In addition, most reviews and box office information come after the film's release. By this time, the template has already been removed. Most editors focus on reviews and box office figures... in my experience, not many make a lot of effort in contributing production-related information. A film article can also grow anytime after a film's release, either the week after or the decade after. It just depends on when the conscious effort is made, so the template does not truly mark the occasion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NODISCLAIMERS, and because it's arguably not that useful. This information should be clear from the lead; there's no need to duplicate it with a big warning template that basically states the obvious. Robofish (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we wait on the outcome of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates#How to implement the deprecation before starting a separate discussion about deleting this particular template? It looks like this template is about to be removed from all articles anyway, which would render this discussion largely moot. Flowerparty^☀ 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the linked discussion, the template has been deprecated but we are currently discussing the best way to go about implementing said deprecation. As such the eventual fate of the templates does look to be deletion, but it would not be advisable until after steps have been taken to ensure the proper categorization of the articles in question, and the subsequent removal of the template. Shereth 14:51, 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.