Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 10

October 10

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 keep. Garion96 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christopher Cain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template lists movies directed by Christopher Cain. This director is not particularly well known and is hardly an "Auteur" that readers need an aid to navigate to his other films. If a reader does want this information it is easy to find in the article on the director. Adding this template to a page would do nothing but add useless clutter and trivia. I know there is a substantial list of directors for which such templates exist (see Category:American film director templates), but a line has to drawn somewhere. We don't need a "By the same director" section in every movie article. RDBury (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is a sufficient number of articles for this director's movies to justify a navbox. Who directed is widely considered a crucial aspect of a film, so there is no generic objection to navboxes of this type (which is one reason there are so many). I don't see any relevance to opinions about whether or not this particular director is an "auteur". --RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 10 October 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.
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 Garion96 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state COA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in two articles, appears to be redundant to {{Infobox U.S. state}}. It appears to be a direct copy of {{Infobox U.S. state}} with a field added for a "Coat of Arms", hence the name. I would say that field could be added to {{Infobox U.S. state}}, and this box could be deleted. Interesting that the template was also created with the TFD already in it for some reason? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 10 October 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.
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 redirected to {{Coord}}. Garion96 (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been deprecated and is currently not used on any pages. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been deprecated and is currently not used on any pages. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:27, 10 October 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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G5 Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The article the template refers to, G5 (British universities) is currently being considered for deletion due to notability issues. Given the questionable notability of the subject, it makes no sense to have a navigation template. The template is currently only used in the article mentioned.RDBury (talk) 13:34, 10 October 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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big East Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There seems to be little legitimate use for this navbox. Navboxes normally are used to tie together articles that have some strong relationship. I don't see how a listing of cities that have a university in the Big East sports conference really qualifies as a relevant connection. Brian Powell (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's very tenuous to connect articles about cities because there happen to be schools in them that are in a sports conference. If navboxes were justified by this type of relationship, the amount of navbox clutter would be astounding. --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this navbox; I was following the precedent set by Template:Big_Ten_Cities and Template:Big_12_Cities. If navboxes for other major athletic conferences are acceptable, why should the Big East Conference be excluded? Slingstone (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because they exist doesn't mean they are "acceptable". See WP:Other stuff exists. The others were both created earlier this year and have never been discussed at TfD, so there is no precedent established. If this one is deleted, then most likely those will be nominated and deleted also, for the same reasons. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right; 'precedent' was a poor word choice. I happen to think these navboxes are rather useful, but I understand that's for the wikipedian community to decide as a whole. I just wanted folks voting to know that it was created a part of a larger attempt to organize and wikify college towns, because different Universities and their athletic conferences are not always treated fairly.Slingstone (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nom that there should a strong connection between the articles they link. This navbox allows you to jump straight from Chicago to New Brunswick, New Jersey and I don't think most people would see the connection unless it was pointed out.--RDBury (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tenuous connection and very crufty. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above; even if the other templates mentioned by Slingstone aren't problematic, they largely link college towns while this one contains (in large part) cities, within the context of which the colleges involved are not as significant. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the similar templates for Template:Big_Ten_Cities, etc. Navboxes should be used to connect pages that have a meaningful relationship. It is meaningful to maintain navboxes for all the schools in a particular athletic conference, because being in the same athletic conference is a meaningful connection between those schools. The cities where those schools are located do not have meaningful relationship. I can imagine that the navbox could be useful for students and alumni planning road trips to their school's "away" games, but usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion of content and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 18 October 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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a popular template from several years ago, it has no modern use on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no reason to use it now, nor is there any reason for this text be a template at all. I propose that we subst its existing uses and then delete the template. @harej 03:39, 10 October 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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eleanor Powell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus has determined that filmography templates for actors is redundant and unnecessary. See the section for the Jim Carrey template from October 9 for a breakdown of previous discussions that determined consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:22, 10 October 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.
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. Garion96 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Presidents to win Nobel Peace Prize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Making a word up, this is excessive over-templatization. We don't need yet another navbox for the Presidents that has only four names on it and will not be growing. It is just an unnecessary intersection of Template:US Presidents and Template:Nobel Peace Prize. Reywas92Talk 00:13, 10 October 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.