Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10

Template:Zelda weapons and items

Redundent. Almost all items are already listed on Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. Any item that has its own page is already linked to from the items page. -- Jelly Soup 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The whole entire purpose of having navigational templates is to make it easier for readers to navigate through pages without having to go back and look through long lists for the link they want. For example, the {{EMD diesels}} template was created to avoid having to look through List of GM-EMD locomotives and the {{Regions of the world}} template was created to avoid having to look through the Subregion article.--TBCΦtalk? 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. {{EMD diesels}} links to several different pages of information on the subject. All the information in this items template is found on one single page. Now, if every item on said page was added to the template and linked to it's section...--Jelly Soup 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. That's incorrect; Master Sword, Rupee (The Legend of Zelda series), Triforce, and Gossip Stone all have seperate articles.--TBCΦtalk? 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. No, I was right. I said the page links off to these articles. Why have a template that does the same thing? -- Jelly Soup 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think some of the Zelda templates could be combined, but let WP:ZELDA deal with it. Nothing annoys me more than deletions of WikiProject-maintained categories and templates. --- RockMFR 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator assumed that information was covered all on one page (Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series). That page contains only a summary about these topics with a link to dedicated articles. That makes this is a legitimate navigational template. -- Renesis (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All information IS covered. Anything that isn't links to dedicated articles, as you said. Again, why have a template that links to things that are already linked to from the article? -- Jelly Soup 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. All information is NOT covered... it is covered with the dedicated articles, for which this template serves as a navigational aid. What is wrong with that? That incredibly long list/article is definitely not a suitable navigational aid. -- Renesis (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. It just seems redundent to me. I could click on Master Sword on the page to go to it's personal page, or I could scroll all the way to the bottom of the SAME page to click on a template? -- Jelly Soup 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. You are probably right that it isn't currently useful at the bottom of the full list. But it's definitely useful on the sub-pages. It helps you navigate between the full articles for the most popular items, once you are on one of them. -- Renesis (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply. I see your point and I conced. Maybe if links are added to each section for the rest of the items, the template will become more useful. -- Jelly Soup 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template is legitimate; useful, per above. Hello32020 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's iffy if all those articles should exist, but until they're gone the template is warranted †he Bread 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universe Daily

This template is redundant with {{blockedsockpuppet|Universe Daily}}. It was orphaned and deprecated, but restored by SunStar Net. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was nominated for TFD a month ago and failed. What has changed since then? Neil916 (Talk) 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That group nomination resulted in no consensus because some users felt that a few of the templates (such as {{Bogdablock}}) were still useful; this template was not one of those cited as such. —[admin] Pathoschild 00:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and replace usages with cited redundant template per above. -- Renesis (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:DENY. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationOfficers

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationTeamBuilding

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Common-target

I understand the intentions of the creator of this template, but I fear this will do more harm then good. This template has the potential of inviting editors to vandalize (a lá "Don't stuff beans up your nose"), rather than simply call to attention the need to watch for vandalism. Additionally, I doubt many vandals would actually follow the instructions outlined on the template, take a look at the policies that are linked, and then decide not to vandalize. -- tariqabjotu 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awful template, no good can come of its use. --- RockMFR 17:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At Bill Gates I added a comment "Whatever you're thinking of doing to the article, it isn't half as funny as you think" and vandalism instantly shot up. This template will be similarly counterproductive. Gazpacho 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete allows vandals to point score. Addhoc 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found it to be highly useful, especially since the wiki admins refused to do much about vandalism to an article I was working on. At least it makes the reader aware that what they are reading may not be what the editors intended to be on the page. Jeffpw 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EMAP

Promotional company advert and excessively long template that reproduces the company promotional material already present in Category:EMAP [[Category:EMAP]] → friedfish 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How is this template any different to those that exist for other similar media companies e.g. Template:Discovery Communications, Template:News Corporation, Template:Guardian Media Group, Template:GCap Media, Template:NBC Universal, Template:Viacom, Template:CBS, Template:Disney, Template:GCI, Template:Time Warner, etc, etc, etc.? A large amount of the material presented in this template is NOT re-produced elsewhere. I think the presence of such a template provides information as to the vastness of the EMAP empire, it also lets people hop easily between assets. I certainly wouldnt call it promotional, I doubt EMAP who try and project their Big City radio stations as being young and trendy would want those brands associated with assets such as "Steam Railway".Pit-yacker 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you for responding, and thank you for pointing out other excessive templates. Notwithstanding; most, if not all, EMAP controlled radio stations are present in [[Category:EMAP]], and should users wish to "hop easily between assets" then it is possible there. Your template is certainly promotional as it lists magazines, which would appear to have been added by members with vested interests in EMAP. Perhaps a more "appropriate and clear" template would be the Template:BBC_Radio and delete [[Category:EMAP]]. → friedfish 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pit-yacker. If EMAP were non-notable, it would be an easy delete, but if I wanted to research the company, the navigation template provides more information and easier navigation to other assets of the company. If the template is too large and ugly for you, it can be reformatted with collapsing subsections (something I don't know how to do myself) without requiring the deletion of the template for aesthetic reasons. Neil916 (Talk) 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The stations and other things listed are so far flung from each other that they do not really aid in navigation. At this point, the navbax is so big that it detracts from navigation rather than aids it. Seriously, what relation does televsion have to radio? If I'm looking at a radio station would I naturally go to a television article? Not really. I wouldn't mind if it was split into radio/television or something like now, but the template as it is now is ginormous, unwiedly, and cumbersome. Hbdragon88 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pit-yacker. A category does not seem to be a suitable replacement for a navigational template in this instance. -- Renesis (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationLogo

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 07:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationMembers

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 07:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a good use of the template space. Hbdragon88 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless template. Hello32020 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gotta go †he Bread 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]