Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Template:Clique[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. Happy‑melon 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template as all but the first novel were merged months ago to the series article. As such, only has three unique links, which doesn't require a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 6 March 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:Page history link[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).

The result of the discussion was: keep. — Aitias // discussion 11:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Page history link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I find this bewildering. This template performs the function of the history tab. Now I have to be missing something here. I'd love to say it was "redundant to a better designed/ implemented template", but it's redundant to a function of Mediawiki software! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I created it because I figured it would be useful. See this link. -- IRP ☎ 23:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Er, ok. But useful in what way? Convince me. Please. I know that sounds patronising but I know no other way of asking than being direct, so my apologies if I am just "not getting it". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I created the template for the ability to conveniently create a link to the history of a page and save editors time when they need to create a page history link. -- IRP ☎ 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of us is missing something here. I expect it's me. But so far I truly do not understand why this adds value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking IRP created it thinking that sometimes during a discussion it might be useful to able to link directly to another page's history. For example, perhaps in a report about an edit war, one could say "see the article's history". That said' I'm inclined towards Delete since it does seem redundant to the far more useful and better named {{article}} template which also includes other useful links that likely be just as helpful in any discussion that brings up article history (comparision: White Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think being shorter than {{article}}(I mean on the displayed page) is occasionally an advantage. I'm not saying you're wrong; just that there's a place for this template too. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't redundant to the page history tab; it's intended to link to some other page's history without an extra click or the need to remember the syntax. It could use improvement (in particular, a shorter name), but it's not redundant. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It already has a template shortcut. See {{ph}}. -- IRP ☎ 21:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to linking to the actual URL: see article history. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a reasonable use. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasonable way to link to histories without having to open the history of the page first to copy+paste the link. SoWhy 11:27, 14 March 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).

Template:Georgia NRHP date for lists[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. Happy‑melon 16:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgia NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete A template not employed by any article, read entire edit history, i can't figure out the usage . Matthew_hk tc 22:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also Template:New York NRHP date for lists. Matthew_hk tc 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't know if because it uses a reference at the end, it has to be subst: to be used, and perhaps might have been added in a number of articles like that? ch10 · 07:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template, as well as others like it for other states, used to be used to show the date of when the state's National Register of Historic Places lists were updated as the National Park Service puts out it weekly listings update. Sometimes the state would be forgotten and wouldn't be updated for a long time. The individual templates were combined into {{NRHP date for lists}} to make it easier to keep track of the dates. I have a list of all the other templates and was going to eventually list them all for deletion. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 04:14, 12 March 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.

User:Stifle/deletionhelp[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 withdrawn by nominator. Acalamari 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User:Stifle/deletionhelp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created during another discussion to prove a WP:POINT. Whereas the subject of the other discussion is used to improve content and is not intended to gain votes in AfDs, this template (an apples and oranges comparison) suggests the opposite. As even the creator acknowledges it would be deleted if used, it serves no real purpose that benefits our project. Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any such template. If the user subpage is what you want deleted, WP:MFD is over there ===>. Request speedy closure, since this discussion is in the wrong place. Deor (talk) 17:43, 6 March 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:WPRedir[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. — Aitias // discussion 11:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know WikiProject banners have their advantages, but only when there is some sanity in their placement. Are we to place this template on the talk page of each and every redirect in the mainspace? All four million of them? Unlike most project banners, this one genuinely is completely useless. The WikiProject is also inactive, but that's another matter. Happy‑melon 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a little much. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inactive project and a fairly useless template, particularly for a project that will never have article assessments or the like to be indicated in such a banner. Just doesn't seem very useful at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Collectonian. Versus22 talk 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with the above. ch10 · 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Collectonian --78.150.206.80 (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well intentioned, but pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence Whenever I convert an article into a redirect, I replace whatever project tags were on the talk page with this one. But I suppose deleting or blanking such a talk page if it was nothing but project tags would serve the same purpose... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – All templates, even ones that are WikiProject banners, should serve a function that benefits the encyclopedia; this template, though well-intentioned, fails to do that and can actually be distracting—have you ever clicked on the talk page of a redirect and found only this template...? –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seeing as this will be deleted, can we ban all WikiProject templates from redirects? I've seen too many MILHIST-tagged redirects that should not be tagged (only the article it redirects to should be tagged, IMHO). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in WP:AFC we tag redirects on the talk page. The reason is that these are not so trivial as some other redirects. They are formally requested, then assessed as to being suitable and then created. The redirects then 'belong' to the WP:AFC project. If there are any issues with the redirect, then it should be going back to the project, as the anonymous contributors will not have the visibility themselves, and instead the project workers have to take care of any issue, (perhaps deletion, article moving, comments from others). In the case of this one, if there is a talk page history the talk page should be kept, particularly if it was once for an article. The banner also promotes the project and is harmless to WP. I would request Keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 12 March 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:John Morrison and The Miz[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. — Aitias // discussion 11:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John Morrison and The Miz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • I'm nominating the tamplate for deletion because I don't see a point in having it as both John Morrison and The Miz have information about their team and the template doesn't provide any easier navigation, so there's really no point in having it. BlackManta 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is no need for it, a duo is not that hard to navigate between when both are mentioned in their respective articles.--₮RUCӨ 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A navbox should provide navigational value beyond that which can be had through a "See also" section or prominent links in the text of articles, and this template fails that standard since the articles are already heavily interlinked (i.e. each one contains at least one highly prominent link to all the others). –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just redundant. It should be noted there is quite a lot of these tiny wrestling navboxes (for teams and even some stables), see: Category:Professional wrestling navigational boxes. Apparently I've been told it's a requirement for featured articles to have a navbox. If that's indeed the case, I find that pretty pointless. When people view a tag team article: it's not hard to find the links for both wrestlers' articles. A template navbox with only a few items is a waste of space. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 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:Hardy Boyz[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. Happy‑melon 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hardy Boyz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • I'm nominating the tamplate for deletion because I don't see a point in having it as both Matt and Jeff Hardy's articles have extensive information about The Hardy Boyz as well as Amy Dumas' page also has information about the Hardyz, the template doesn't provide any easy navigation and isn't needed. BlackManta 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - why has this beeen nominated for deletion? A reason would be nice. I created this template per Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Hardy Boyz, where I was told that this template was needed. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where a template creation was asked for, deleting it seems certainly unnecessary. Collect (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the request is not accompanied by a good reason? In this case, only one editor asked for creation of the template and he provided no reason for his request. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a navbox is not required for a Featured Topic (only suggested) and I see only one person actually mentioned it at all. With only four articles, already heavily wikilinked with one another, this template really isn't needed at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete -- per WP:WIAFT -- (c) All articles in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category. So its preferred that a template be used. not mandatory in F/GT's.--₮RUCӨ 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template is "preferable" but not a requirement, particularly with smaller topics. The main point is that they are well linked, which these are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only three interconnected links, not enough material at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Collectonian and TenPoundHammer. This navbox does not have sufficient value as a navigation tool to justify its existence, since it includes only four articles which are already heavily interlinked with one another. While the creation was obviously in good faith, there really is no need for the template, and I further note that the request for a navbox was not backed by a reason. For just four articles, there is no need for a category either (see WP:OCAT#SMALL). –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:20, 11 March 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_March_6&oldid=1140162325"