Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 4



Film list templates

 * 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 all. PeterSymonds (talk)  21:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)





Pointless templates with only one blue link and one transclusion, linking only to the articles where they are used. As such, these templates don't navigate the reader anywhere. No prejudice against recreation for any of these when or if a sufficient number of articles makes a template useful and viable. — PC78 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Needless proliferation. Text of the articles can capably state the contents of any of these templates without taking up prime graphic space at the top of the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pointless templates due to the fact that they only link to the article that they're transcluded on, serving only to clog up the page. If/when a template is warranted they can be recreated as PC78 states.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 16:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pointless. That's what categories and lists are for. Templates are not for that cause. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous comments--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:00, 12 July 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:Redirectstohere

 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

These templates are meant to inform editors that there is a redirect to the section that the template is put in. This is inherently self-referential, so should not show up in articles at all - it's much better to do this with a comment on the heading instead. — Hairy Dude (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed. Comment in the text area is sufficient. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete, serves no real purpose to readers. Kwanesum (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete, no purpose to readers, useful for editors in a sense, but the code for the template should just be empty, IMHO (not the nested if mess). Basically you want something that doesn't show up to readers, but indicates to editors not to change a section title.  A template that only showed up during preview would be ok, but this one is basically invisible to readers and editors.  Probably the best solution is to make this subst-only, to create uniform html comments (in the same style as the bot which handles this) JackSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I agree with JackSchmidt. Nat682 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-write per Jack Schmidt's suggeston.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and rewrite I have often found these templates helpful, but they are self referential. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 11:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a case here Polypedates maculatus where something like this may actually be useful. Shyamal (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is this suppose to by a lazy way to bypass WP:R? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 14 July 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:Wrexham & Shropshire Route

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This template is not transcluded into any article, but instead is directly linked from other articles. As a transclusion, it formed the bulk of the now deleted article Wrexham & Shropshire Route (see Articles for deletion/Wrexham & Shropshire Route), and directly linking to the remaining template seems to be a (good faith) attempt to get round the deletion of the article. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
 * The template is on its own because it is too 'detailed' for the Wrexham & Shropshire article. It is my opinion that the route the W&S takes is fairly complicated, and the route diagram helps to explain it more clearly. To take another example, the Great Central Main Line (diagram) is not transcluded in any articles, but still there to explain what is a very complicate route. By having links to the W&S route template, people can examine it if they want to, and that's what an encyclopdia is for. Mpvide65 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article you quote is a proper article, with a lead section to give context to the map. In the light of the recent AfD for Wrexham & Shropshire Route, I am not convinced that it would survive an AfD of its own. I appreciate the hard work you've done with this diagram, but using a template to get round a deleted article is not on. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine then. I will make this a proper article and give it a lead section to give context. Is that okay? Mpvide65 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No - as explained above, the article was deleted per consensus at AfD. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is there for people to find out information. The W&S route is a complicated one and the route diagram explains it. I agree that the W&S route article just repeated information, but this route diagram does not. It is useful and therefore should stay. Mpvide65 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Since it is a train route, not a train line, I don't think it merits its own template or article. Possibly the information could be kept on the main W&S page with the diagram defaulting to close. --Thetrick (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although it is a route, the diagram has certainly been useful to me and others. It should keep its own page. 90.192.200.171 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the template has now been moved back into article space. As pointed out above, a similar article has already been deleted through AfD. Also note that User:90.192.200.171 has only made three edits. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – The creator has only been here 3 months, and appears to be a good contributor. The work in this article/template/article appears to be of good quality.  I think he has basically tried to introduce some content to an article in a way that avoided stepping on the article's toes.  However, this has made him sit through two deletion discussions, instead of really going through the content dispute process.  To avoid WP:BITE, someone who understands WP:WikiProject Trains (both the wiki culture and trains themselves) should probably take some time to explain how he can best contribute to the project.  The deletion discussions and even the article talk pages, have pointed out the problems, but have not really suggested what he should work on.  For instance, the content has been called WP:OR, but noone has suggested he try to find sources, or even just link to a pretty picture on the company website.  Basically, it is clear that these article/template pages (discussed at AfD and here) are not the right place to put this content, but what we have here is a content dispute that somehow has gone through the wrong processes. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case it was not clear, I think the template clearly qualifies as delete as unused (and there was consensus on the relevant article talk page not to use it), and the article qualifies as delete both per the original afd and per WP:CSD. I just think Mpvide65's work is very good (another AfD "delete" voter User:DrFrench also mentioned how good the work was and how difficult this task is).  I think Tivedshambo is taking care of making sure Mpvide65 knows his work is appreciated, and inviting him to the Trains projects. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment - I appreciate being called a 'good contributor'. I have added a link and a map to the article page, and I still think the article is worth keeping. I cannot think of any sources that proove the route is correct. If anyone can, please add it! Mpvide65 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 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:APO Hiking Society

 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly redlinked navbox for a band. 6 uses in 6 articles. Thetrick (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While red links are a good thing, this template does not yet serve as the navigational tool it should. As such, delete. No prejudice toward recreation if those red links are filled in. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 7 July 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.