Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 18



Template:Infobox Historic woman cricketer

 * 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 delldot   &nabla;.  05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Template redundant to the new Infobox cricketer biography. Now orphaned. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant template, unused. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - deprecated; per nom. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unused and unnecessary following replacement by better template.–MDCollins (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete depreciated (I know, I know. But the Credit Crunch has got to me) --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 22 September 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:The Beatles albums

 * 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 delldot   &nabla;.  05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Largely redundant to information which is already in the main template. Possibly an "other" or "international" area could be added to the main temp. There's just simply no reason to include a template this big when the existing template already has much of this information. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, it includes Canadian albums, US EP:s, all live-albums etc which don't appear in the main template. This makes it easier for the normal reader out here to see how many albums that where actually made, and makes it easier to skip between them. All of these articles could not possibly fit in the main template without making it super huge. ☺    Spiby    ☻  08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well see that's what lists are for. Templates are intended to be an easy navigational tool. There has to be a way to incorporate the material into the main template. The problem is that this template has quite a bit of the material in the main template...and they are going to appear on many of the same articles. So then you are going to be repeating information on each page that both appear on. There just has to be a way of merging the 2. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will admit that my objection to this template is mild. I just don't see a reason why we need 2 Beatles templates on the albums that they released. It just seems inefficient and unnecessary. Has to be a better way. But if there isn't, I can live with it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the studio albums appearing twice. I got the idea for a separate album template from this edit to the main template. By removing the US albums from the main template Addit made it smaller, but I felt the US albums needed to be somewhere. Then I looked around and found all these articles about EP:s and other albums I didn't know existed. It just seems logical to me to have a separate template for the albums, since there's so many of them. ☺    Spiby    ☻  13:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we agree to disagree then. :) Like I said, if its kept it will not make me sad, hurt or angry. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, because it is highly redundant. The main template,, already includes a link to The Beatles discography, which is all that is needed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:54, 24 September 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:Fringenav

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculously premature navigation template for a television series that has aired exactly TWO episodes and has one article, one episode list, and one episode. This thing will do nothing but encourage the creation of a glut of unnotable character and fictional element articles that are no where near needed. A template is not needed at this time and is not likely to be needed (hopefully) for months. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep Rediculously short sighted objection to a completely reasonable template. This is a well reviewed, well watched series by a major american television arteur. Whining about the template is silly and smacks of someone who cannot stand ease of navigation. The template itself is restrained. By the way, writing of new pages is what the wikipedia is all about. I'm a little tired of people objecting to folks who actually wish to work on the wikipedia. Transcendentalstate (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please don't attack people for putting things up for deletion. There is nothing wrong with someone doing that. Putting something up for deletion is not "objecting to folks who actually wish to work on the wikipedia". It's simply that the user doesn't believe that the template is necessary or usable. I see that you are the creator of the template. Please don't take things such as people putting something you created up for deletion so personally. The user is not saying anything about you personally or about the quality of your work. It's also not whining. It's simply someone putting forth an opinion on a deletion debate, which is something that is done every day. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You possibly have a point about attacking, however, I would point out that my comment was directly related to the somewhat irrascible language of Collectonian calling the template rediculous, not to mention the desire to impose their particular wiki-worldview on the group as a whole. While Collectonian clearly belongs to the school of thought that templates, characters, and fictional element pages are "nowhere near needed", I (and many others) feel strongly that pages like these are very helpful, and increase the enjoyment of wikipedia users. My point of view certainly has a place on Wikipedia, and I refuse to simply kowtow to the tyranny of the folks who feel that there is no place for such pages.  So if the group decides to delete the template, fine.  I will note, however, that Collectonian deleted the template from the article without waiting for this decision to be made.  I intend to reinstate it unless there is a clear concensus.Transcendentalstate (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No need to have a navigation box when internal links will do doktorb wordsdeeds 18:45, 18 September 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.