Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 17



Template:David Archuleta

 * 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 debate was Delete. Happy‑melon 11:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Very similar case to the Kristy Lee Cook. Just way too early for a template. Let's wait until he actually has a hit that isn't fueled by American Idol WoohookittyWoohoo! 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - too few links and possible uses to be helpful for navigation. Mr.Z-man 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It seemed like it was an obvious choice and served our readers well. It seems apparent he's being groomed to release several singles and then his album so unclear why it's so unhelpful - if it's policy that it's just not allowed then so be it. Banj e  b oi   19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Too few links for now. Wait until he's two albums or several singles into his career. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Event

 * 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 debate was Delete. The nature of the template aside, this is pure duplication and borderline T3. Happy‑melon 11:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. A recent creation: another example of temporal template proliferation. This one has the functionality of and is a copy of current, and redundant. The temptations for the proliferation of current are many. The original template, was intended as a warning to editors to not step on each other's edits, for those very few occasions in which an article is massively edited, by many many editors, and not to indicate that some topic happens to be in the news. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of topics are in the news, and it is unremarkable that an article is subject to change. Adding a template like this to "newsy" articles adds zero to the content that the lede of the article cannot more eloquently state. The creator of this particular template hopes to make a notice available for less intensively edited articles, which has been shown to be unworkable during the existence of the original template, besides needless. Examples of similarly superfluous templates that have been deleted or redirected in the last year:
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_19
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_5
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_5
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_5
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_29
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_15
 * Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_23
 * -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. User:Yellowdesk has been a very active proponant of modifying the current template usage to limit it to a notice to editors that many editors are simultaneously working on an article. This has replaced the tradional usage of the template, which was a warning to readers that the article content was developing in response to a current event, and may be incomplete or subject to change as more information becomes available. I disagree that the original intent was a warning to editors only. The nom is based on an assertion that a warning to readers is somehow unmanageable, even though we have similar templates that are applied to large numbers of articles such as refimprove, etc. Notwithstanding the validity of this change, or whether it even represents community concent, it has created a vacuum that needed to be filled with a smilar template intended for the purpose of warning readers (but not an identical copy as asserted in the nom). Warnings to readers are a legitimate use of templates, regardless of "temporal template proliferation" which sounds like a vague euphamism for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note that the examples listed were also nominated by the same user, and were deleted with very thin support. While I agree that the more specific templates are not needed, the general template is useful. It is also not redundant so long as the intended purpose is different. Dhaluza (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding, we also have recent death which serves a similar purpose to event. Dhaluza (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that the use of the template current has been changed is wayward of the history of the inception of current. Here's the link to the comment from the creator of that template, on current's talk page in, ahem, November, 2004.  In summary, from that post:


 * More to the point, is that the template under discussion, event is superfluous, as all articles are subject to change, and typically, many are edited because of actions taking place in the present. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so if this was the original intent, the template nevertheless came to be used by a large number of editors for the purpose of warning editors. In bringing this template back to the narrower initial intent, the latter purpose was lost. All articles are subject to change, but new articles generally change faster, especially when the story is also developing at the same time. It could also be argued that this use of current is superfluous because we also have Inuse which is also intended to address editing conflicts. I think each actually serves a slightly different purpose, which is the real point. Dhaluza (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The further claim that inuse would be appropriate on such an occasion is also wide of the mark. Its page says that it is intended for occasions in which single editors are working on a page, which is a fair bit different from a page which receives several hundred edits on the same day by a large number of editors. I quote from inuse:
 * "The tag is intended to inform people that someone is currently working on the article, thereby reducing edit conflicts...."
 * That guidance would not be observed when a couple of hundred people are interested in editing the page that day. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That guidance would not be observed when a couple of hundred people are interested in editing the page that day. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Last Exile info

 * 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 debate was Delete. Happy‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 11:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All character pages are now on one page, no need for nav template Kraftlos (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless template, too few useful links. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: With no separate articles, no need for navigation. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.