Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 15

< December 14	December 16 >

December 15 edit

Template:Cleanup-remainder 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) 00:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-remainder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-remainder with Template:Cleanup.
What difference does it make that the article that needs cleanup is a remainder of something else? Either you clean it up, or you tag it with {{Cleanup}}. Either way this template is not needed. It is in use on 78 articles only, and can easily be replaced by {{Cleanup}}. Both sort into the same categories. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and replace transclusions) - This template seems to be just a way of indicating that some cleanup has occurred. Without more context, however, this information is not particularly useful, since virtually every positive edit to an article could count as "cleanup". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:26, 16 December 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:Climate chart/column 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 per CSD#T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Climate chart/column (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be an unused component of Template:Climate chart. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The code for the template uses Template:Climate chart/fahrenheit column and Template:Climate chart/celsius column instead of this. This aspect of the code has been stable for over two years, so there is no need to keep this old, unused subpage. --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 18 December 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:Sofia Rotaru songs 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) 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sofia Rotaru songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete Kind of a useless template, linking to a single song and otherwise red. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough existing links to make a viable navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 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:Family Guy writers 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 better navigated as a category and/or List of writers of Family Guy, List of directors of Family Guy, List of writers of The Simpsons, List of directors of The Simpsons in the respective see also sections. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Guy writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Family Guy directors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simpsons writers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simpsons directors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The navigation boxes connect people who have no apparent connection to each other, other than working on the same show, some not even at the same time. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nominated completely out of spite. Gage (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From the guideline: "As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? If the answer is "no", a category or list is probably more appropriate." This isn't out of spite, it just shouldn't be. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - See Template:Simpsons writers, Template:Simpsons directors. Gage (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Ever heard of navigation? What makes this less connected than things at Template:Barack Obama? The Flash ^{talk} 04:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The consensus is not to include crew members in navigation boxes, which is what these are. Also, if you read the guideline, each entry must have a strong connection; any two articles would have to have a logical connection. Most of these entries have very little in common other than being writers/directors on a single show, some not even close to the same time period. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think it's fair to say that a consensus has been reached there yet. --Intractable (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few things...
- The "spite" GageSkidmore points to, I think, is their revert of Bovineboy2008 applying WP:NAVBOX to the Family Guy templates. The long and the short of that is Bovineboy2008 was in the right - red links and unlinked text should not be there.
- All 4 templates contain links that are tenuous, at best. "One or two-time writers" and "Animation studios" point to either articles that are substantively about more than the show or articles that exist only to fill out the template.
- Even among the remaining articles, the link used to justify the 'box is a stretch since it is unlikely writing or directing one show is the bulk or only content in the articles. There are better ways to present this information.
- Converting these to categories is very likely not going to work since there is already a strong standing consensus not to categorize people by employer or project.
- Converting to a list article is likely the best way to go. With that, the non-articles can be listed, relevant information can be supplied, and a link to the list can be added to the "parent" navboxes. But even if such list don't happen, these 4 'boxs should be removed. - J Greb (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't list these people in the general show nav boxes (not in TV or Film articles) because a single individual who worked on a show/film does not have a strong enough connection to another that worked on that show to warrant needing a nav box from his page to the other persons. You end up cluttering pages with nav boxes because you have prolific writers and directors that work on multiple shows (or even creators) and to do it for one would mean you'd have to do it for all. It's clutter, nothing else. If you need a connection between Seth McFarland and anyone else he's worked with that that connection should be made on that specific topic's page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bignole's argument. A person is not a key part of the franchise but instead contributes to it as one of many endeavors in life. It is excessive to include involved people in a template because their articles will only reflect their contributions to the franchise in passing, either in a couple of sentences or even just a bulleted entry. The person's background is largely irrelevant to the franchise. There are enough links about Family Guy related to the seasons and the characters and so forth; these are indisputably franchise-related, and these are what should be stuck to. Erik (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Writers and directors will work on many shows in their careers and should not have their wiki articles cluttered with these navboxes. WikiProject members should consider adding a link to the respective writer/director lists to the "see also" section of these articles. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hey let's also make a navbox and include all Family Guy and Simpsons guest stars! This is all extremely unnecessary. Also, I resent that statement that BOVINEBOY2008 is doing this out of spite. He is just trying to follow guidelines, like we all should be, which is why he brought it up here. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a topic is extremely notable (Template:Shakespeare), this sort of thing should be done by a category or a list. If this navigation template is taken to any logical conclusion (by creating more such templates), some writers/directors would end up with ten navboxes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is no good reason why to delete it --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 13:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, all the delete votes are followed by incoherent slamming on the keyboard. Erik (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. First, the nom is correct that these articles are being joined based on a connection that isn't necessarily important to them or to the shows. Second, these templates have the same problem that has been discussed at length for cast/crew templates in general: Because these people are not defined by or limited to working on a single show, they could accumulate templates ad nauseum. For example, Rich Moore has directed for seven different shows. --RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The connections are loose at best and they are not defined by the work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:17, 18 December 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:White Album Characters 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) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Album Characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This isn't really that necessary, is it? Btilm 01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template and restore identical text that was removed from White Album (visual novel) in this edit. Article text belongs in articles, not in templates. Maralia (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Single-use template posing as regular article text, contrary to WP:TMP#Usage. --RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 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.