Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 18



Template:Moons of Neptune

 * 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely redudant with Neptune which all of the Neptune moon articles already transclude. — Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, not redundant, and an integral part of Template:Natural_satellites_of_the_Solar_System. Perhaps the "moons" section of the Neptune could be considered redundant. RandomCritic (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per RandomCritic. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the template:Neptune moons section should be reduced to the two major moons, Nereid and Triton, like Saturn and Jupiter have only major moons listed. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've WP:BOLDly cleaned up Neptune to make it cleaner, and also to let Moons of Neptune be non-redundant 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as parallel with other satellite systems. kwami (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep With the new and improved Neptune, the redundancy issue (as I see it, the only issue) is moot. - Running On  Brains  11:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep looks fine to me -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent symmetry edit making this useful. M URGH   disc.  13:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:05, 25 February 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:Danish Ancestry

 * 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 speedy delete by User:Kubigula CSD G7. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I made two templates somehow and only needed one.--Carlaude (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Add db-author to the page for speedy deletion. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete by author request, and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 17:08, 18 February 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:Launching/SM

 * 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Amend: Upon more closely examining the template, the result of the debate is changed to delete. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Designed for single use. Basically a copy of Launching, with text added that can be simply placed in the article in question. A case of template proliferation. Yellowdesk (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is not single use. There are at least four uses at the moment. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 08:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The single use being a single launch that will be over in a week or so concluded on Feb 21, 2008 (GMT). See USA 193. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment launching/SM is actually a call to launching; The /SM template appears to be a convenience wrapper with some pre-defined parameters. As such, it isn't actually a copy of, and doesn't duplicate its functionality. I do however suggest that the contents of  be used as an example of what  is capable of (and so also improve its painfully sparse documentation). Were that example copy/pasteable, it would even obviate the need for the /SM wrapper. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, this template and Launching take up quite a bit of screen real estate on the top of articles. Current is much thinner and seems to provide a similar function. Maybe a template guru could thin it down some. I agree that the launching/SM example appears to be temporary, having only one function, for one launch and after that launch it would need to be deleted anyway. (or used as an example listed above. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 Prefix index shows there are a number of these special purpose templates. I made an attempt at an example and doc page, but in retrospect it doesn't look like any articles directly use Launching. it is a template used by other templates and Launching/SM is one of those that use it. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dual Freq is right that Current is much better.  -Joshuapaquin (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the above comments, note that current's purpose is not to inform of a recent event, but to warn editors not to step on each other's edits, when an exceedingly popular (with editors) and rapidly evolving event occurs. See Template:Current . -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should use Launching directly. The same holds for several of the other subtemplates, like for example Launching/Dnepr &mdash; but not for all: there are a number of those which are indeed used for repetitive launches of similar satellites. – gpvos (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge functionality with some kind of option. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if the info is REALLY needed in articles presented as a template, then perhaps the article could be edited to have the raw data in it (a bit messier than a modified Launching as opposed to the entire load of HTML, still editors ought to cope with that). Were I allowed to vote, I'd go with Yellowdesk in this matter. 88.148.203.233 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The details can easily be captured in the article. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no reason to have this detail in the template, and thus no reason for the custom template. Superm401 - Talk 05:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. These templates that translude launching are great! They serve two purposes: they let the exact same information appear in all the articles related to the launch, letting editors update it in a single place as the launch progresses, and just as great, doing it this way doesn't clutter up the article histories with all those minor updates. (Those history entries go in the history of the template instead. Only the addition of the template when the launch campaign starts and the removal after the launch is over appear in the histories of the main articles. (sdsds - talk) 06:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per sdsds --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 February 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.