Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 1

< June 30	July 2 >

July 1 edit

Template:US time 2008 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) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US time 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphaned, and no foreseeable future use. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any obvious use for this template, which just tells you the current time in various time zones. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:16, 8 July 2011 (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:New Jersey state colleges 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) 13:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Jersey state colleges (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has been obsoleted by Template:Colleges and universities in New Jersey 67.83.96.145 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphaned and redundant (although the template had been redirected to the one above anyway). Robofish (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already redirected to Template:Colleges and universities in New Jersey since September 2009. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:26, 8 July 2011 (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:Upcoming consoles 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) 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Upcoming consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All "future" templates were deleted per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and deprecated. Robofish (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (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:Upcoming game consoles 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) 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Upcoming game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All "future" templates were deleted per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and deprecated. Robofish (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Unnecessary. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (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:Non-free FirefoxWiki 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) 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free FirefoxWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template; could be replaced if use would be warranted by just using {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} and {{Non-free Mozilla logo}}. Simply redundant. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. While the bits of the file itself might be free, the trademark policy means that we need to treat this as non-free. Nevertheless, a better solution would be to generalise the template so that it covers all works where the copyright is fine but a trademark policy means we can't make full use of the file. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:13, 1 July 2011 (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:AGPL-3 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) 13:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AGPL-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

AGPL is a software license rather than a media license. Only current transclusion is File:Gluster-Logo-thumbnail5.png, and that file's page claims CC-BY-SA for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:19, 1 July 2011 (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:AFC redir 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 deleted by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (template was tagged with {{db-self}}). Big Dom 17:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFC redir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused process template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is used, but perhaps you could check with WP:WPAFC first? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, as per this and item #63 of this report. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "unused" is an ambiguous word here. It is quite possible for a template to be used but not have any transclusions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - I was rather hoping that its author might be able to fill us in as to how it's used. :) Even if this is still part of process (and you'd hope that this would be noted by someone seeing the TfD tag when using it), it's just a red cross with "declined" next to it. It's not obvious that this is any different to just using {{not done}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the editnotice, we now use {{Afc redirect}} to respond to redirect requests at Afc. {{AFC redir}} can be safely deleted. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I have tagged as {{db-self}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 8 July 2011 (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:Upgrade 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) 16:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to {{no-Internet}}; the only current transclusion is by an editor who added the template over two years ago (and has been active since). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with no redirect remaining. Upgrade is a misleading name, but this template has more features than the other, so the other should add features found in this one. Specifically, add a return date parameter to optionally use in place of "indeterminate length". 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2011 (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:Bullied 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 Substitute and Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seldom-used wikibreak template which strays a bit far into Facebook territory and has the potential to send the wrong message (i.e. that the user was bullied on Wikipedia, which isn't the sort of thing we want people adding big banners on their userpage for). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTFACEBOOK . 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but re-word If a user wishes to tell people that's the reason they arn't on Wikipedia then that should be allowed. I agree though, that the template needs re-wording to show that they where not bullied on Wikipedia. Oddbodz (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If they want to say something WP:NOTFACEBOOKy, they can make a template in their userspace. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BEANS, I fear that use of this template might actually encourage on-wiki bullying rather than discourage it. Either way, it doesn't seem like something that should be announced. Robofish (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - if one wants to say so, write it down, no need for a template for something that is likely to be quite rare. . Nabla (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a special template for this. --El on ka 19:55, 9 July 2011 (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:TV city 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 per G2. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV city (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, can't think of any situation it'd be used in. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I can't see any evidence that its author ever deployed it anywhere. So it looks like this was an aborted test of some sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:31, 1 July 2011 (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:Discussion moved 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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discussion moved (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Saving here is minimal compred to just typing the required text. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - someone finds it useful. –xeno^talk 18:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Redirect to Template:Moved discussion. –xeno^talk 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for years they haven't, looking at the transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was used on Feb 2011. –xeno^talk 18:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{discussion at}} with a parameter to specify it was moved, and another parameter at the opposite end to indicate it was moved from somewhere else. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2011 (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:Discussion at 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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discussion at (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

saving here is minimal over just typing the required text. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - someone finds it useful. –xeno^talk 18:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Redirect to Template:Moved discussion. –xeno^talk 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any more, by the looks of the transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would have used it if I had known about it... it needs to be categorized and placed into the documentation about talk pages. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2011 (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:Sidebox 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 rename and redirect {{sidebox}} to {{side box}}. With no clear suggestion for a new name for this template, I will go with {{sidebar box}}. Feel free to move it to something else, and I can have a bot update the transclusions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to the better-designed {{relevant discussion}}, and too similarly titled to the more useful {{side box}} for comfort. Recommend substing the existing transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, completely redundant to {{relevant discussion}}. Suggest redirecting to {{side box}} after deletion as {{R from misspelling}} Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Keep or redirect. I created this tempate in May 2008, and was unaware until today that there was another template, {{relevant discussion}}, created in 2007. I do think keeping the name "sidebox" is useful (especially as I see someone else created a "side box" template in December 2008). I'm also concerned that the "relevant discussion" template has the issue that long talkpage links could lead to a very wide box. Even when using sidebox, I've often had to condense links, like "[[really:long/link that goes on for days and days#And then a subthread on that page | Link1]]". Ultimately though, I have no strong objection to redirecting both "sidebox" and "side box" to the "relevant discussion" template. --Elonka 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on comments that came after mine, I am reconsidering my position, and have changed from "redirect" to "Keep or redirect". --Elonka 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{sidebox}} has a very different use: it's an articlespace template used as a basic for the likes of {{special characters}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe someone wants to have a sidebox that isn't about relevant discussion? –xeno^talk 18:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xeno --The Σ ^talk_contribs 19:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Maybe" someone does? It's used solely for that purpose. I'm the kind of guy who keeps chargers for phones I haven't had for twelve years, but I recognise that this is fundamentally a pointless exercise. There's a very good reason to repurpose the title, which is that {{sidebox}} actually is useful and is still well-used at the present time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it pointless to use a template to create a box on the side of the page to separately house some text or other content? This template is more versatile than {{relevant discussion}}, as demonstrated by the uses. –xeno^talk 18:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not actually borne out by inspection of the transclusions. This template was devised and primarily deployed for one purpose, which happens to be the same as the other template. That this one is theoretically more general in nature is not in itself a reason to keep it around, as the project has been around for long enough now that talk page process is pretty settled; there's no demonstrable need for a completely general talk page sidebar, which is why nobody actually uses this any more in preference to the specific template. And again, having two templates with different semantics and use cases which differ in title only by a space is bad practice; that mistake was what led me to this template in the first place, and it's only the smattering of old transclusions which stopped me from redirecting it outright. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It looks plenty versatile to me:
        User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 5#Ping ping
        
        Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 25#History comments 2
        
        Talk:Search engine optimization#images
        
        User:Gacurr
        
        Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive120#User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate
        
        So I don't see a need to shoehorn it into the "Relevant discussions" template. We aren't running out of template space. –xeno^talk 23:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I didn't say it wasn't versatile. I said that it is practically never used for anything other than flagging related discussions. The examples you've given (which presumably you had to look for) even reinforce this: with the exception of the poor man's userbox at User:Gacurr, they're all "related discussion" boxes with trivial syntax difference. And while we may not be "running out of template space", this one quite obviously clashes with another template which genuinely does have a more general use. What's wrong with using {{side box}} for these "flexible" uses anyway? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course xeno is right (and I wish this were better understood by the "delete no transclusions" crowd) that we are not running out of name-space, but Chris is also right that having these varying-by-a-space and varying-by-caps templates does constitute significant name-space pollution, as do certain other uses of short or common names. For those reasons Move and redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 6 July 2011 (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:Workpage 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 no consensus to merge or delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with {{Userspace draft}}, which it closely matches, even having a parallel category system (Category:Workpages). "Userspace draft" is now well established as the preferred term (cf Help:userspace draft and the Article Wizard). Keep as a template redirect, but there's no need for this duplication. Rd232 ^talk 22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question - shouldnt the category name and the template name be aligned if they are parall content? Active Banana (^bananaphone 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose workpages exist in places other that userspace, including as copyvio replacement pages, and collaborative areas of wikiprojects. Further scratchpads are not drafts, they are collection areas, which can be used for multiple articles. Controversial articles also sometimes have workpage subpages in talk namespace, where content is vetted before being added, and are not drafts, or even complete articles. 65.94.45.185 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like that's covered: in userspace by {{User sandbox}}, in project space by {{Project Sandbox}}, and in talkspace by {{Talkspace draft}}. Also, there is no requirement that a "draft" be a draft of a complete article; or even of article content. If there is any remaining use that justifies a separate template for Wikipedia:Workpages, the template and documentation should be tightened to avoid other uses of the template. Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 65.94.45.185 - not all work pages are created in user space. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems silly to have two templates which are meant for the same purpose but in different namespaces. Couldn't both of these be merged into {{draft}}, an underused template with the same goals? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a page tagged with {{workpage}} may have several articles or part articles in preparation, whereas a page tagged with {{userspace draft}} generally is only a single article being worked on at a time. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: {{workpage}} to {{talkspace draft}} and change the category to Category:Talkspace drafts (these two templates definitely do appear to serve precisely the same purpose (even according to {{workpage}}'s own /doc, which says that such workpages are put in talkspace); I think the nominator here simply didn't know about it, and selected the userspace version as a result. I agree with the above that those two are in fact distinct: the {{userspace draft}} and Category:Userspace drafts serve the purpose of distinguishing userspaced from "free-for-all" workpages, which isn't "silly" (though it may turn out to not be seen as needed - cf. {{user essay}}, which was around for a long time, eventually merging into {{essay}}). What we have that is definitely problematic is two templates for identifying the ones that aren't userspaced. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - From the documentation, "These are generally created as subpages of the corresponding Talk: page to avoid any possibility that a casual reader may stumble upon them...." --The Σ ^talk_contribs 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This template is designed to clearly state a page's purpose and avoid good faith accusations of "fake article". Rich Farmbrough, 11:04, 6 July 2011 (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:TVT Records 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) 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TVT Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, the artists listed are not related to each one another, other than being signed to the same record label. The information is better suited for the already established Category:TVT Records artists. Aspects (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this page. 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 04:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any proper argument there. The eye-bleeding visuals aren't at all helpful either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

The information on the template contradicts the article in that some former artists are current artists on the article
The related articles aren't even related at all.Curb Chain (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Renamed "Former artists" to "Artists". 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Musicmatch article from the template. 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seperated "Artists" into "Former artists" and "Current artists". 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep offhand, with the above improvements it looks like a fairly standard record-label template. i kan reed (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@1007D: Did you change the template to align article, or did you change the article to align template?Curb Chain (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1007D has been indefinitely blocked, so it's not likely you're going to get an answer to that here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information is redundant. We already have a category with this information. Also, it doesn't seem like there's a significant reason to group the bands in the template. We don't have templates for record labels like Sony or Universal, and for good reason. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed the article to align template. 'I () () `'/ I><pron0un¢ed "On£-ThouSand-$e7enT¥"> 02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.223.236 (talk) [reply]
- Closing admin, please note this is a duplicate vote from the category creator. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Torcheist's reasons above. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the category suffices. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2011 (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:Clayfighter 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. Big Dom 17:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigates four articles. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:24, 1 July 2011 (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:Eli Roth 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. There are no objections to deletion after three weeks. Big Dom 17:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eli Roth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three actual films (definitely not rationale for a template) and one of the links was to a non-existent article, the other "Thanksgiving" isn't a full article or even a full film... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a problem with "Thanksgiving", since it is a short film, and it's in a different article from all the other links. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that it isn't a proper article, it's just a section within another article. The template serves as "films directed by Eli Roth" and this is just a fake trailer rather than a film. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in a different article that any other on the template, so it's a valid link; just because topics don't have full articles doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to find them. It was directed by Roth, and it's a short film, even if the film takes the form of a trailer. (NOTE: None of my comments thus far carry a value opinion of keep or delete, just observations) 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@65.94.47.63: All comments are considered and interpreted.Curb Chain (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2011 (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.