Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 12



Template:GameNavigation

 * 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 G2 --Magioladitis (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Has no content, probably created in error. Djr32 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * G2 Obvious test page. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:24, 13 January 2009 (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:Infobox International Cricket team

 * 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

With the more in depth Template:Infobox Test team and Template:Infobox non test cricket team this template is now redundant. Jpeeling (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (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:Page

 * 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 no consensus to delete. delldot  &nabla;.  21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Old template. It was used to help oldafdfull in Talk pages. Useless now that oldafdfull supports parameter "page=". I didn't know this templates existed until an editor started adding it in article mainspace by replacing all occurrences of page's name in the source with this template. In article mainspace this template is of no help and in fact can make things more complicated. Magioladitis (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's used to link a talkpage to it's main page right? Is there some other shortcut for that? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we need a template to create a link to the main page. In the past this was used by a template but now it's not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be used in future for templates, or if someone has a form reply. Like a personal clientside script / macro. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Only makes things more complicated, indeed. No use. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potentially useful, even if subst'd, so that we cannot easily tell whether it were used in subst'd templates.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Check how it was used: . It was creating broken OldAfdfull templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2009 (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 Pen and Paper Star

 * 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 no objections, so delete. The image still exists if people want to repurpose it for something. delldot  &nabla;.  21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unused barnstar. Author was asked about its purpose back in October but never answered, as they've been inactive since August. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it should be repurposed, rather than deleted? --Eastlaw (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (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.

Film 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 discussion was delete. delldot  &nabla;.  05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)



As per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films and with creators approval. Gnevin, N>B(talk) 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)}}
 * Comment. I hope you don't mind, but I've removed about 8 or so templates from the above list because I don't think it's conducive to include them here in a single discussion. No prejudice against listing them seperatly, though. PC78 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones did you remove, is I can review them? Never mind I see which ones nowGnevin (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Each of these templates contains exactly two links, and typically they only have a mere one or two transclusions. They serve little meaningful purpose as navigational aids, and in fact seem to be used primarily to "pretty up" articles with icons such as these (which appear to violate WP:MOSICON) or other images (what does this photograph say about Nepali films?), the removal of which has been proposed in the discussion linked above and obviously that won't leave much (see Vietnamesefilmlist, for example). Some of these are redundant to proper and more comprehensive nav templates (compare CinemaofIceland and CinemaofNewZealand with theircounterparts above) which are used in the same articles anyway, while the rest have little or no scope for expansion at present. This is an unnecessary proliferation of templates, and even the creator of most (all?) of them has expressed a desire to have them deleted (again, see linked discussion above). PC78 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting only the listed templates would create inconsistency in related articles: there are fully developed similar templates like template:Germanyfilmlist, template:Russianfilmlist template:Americanfilmlist etc. that are in the same category. The fact that the ones listed above have only 2 links is simply due to nobody ever has taken the time to finish the work. In case it's considered and consensus can be reached that Category:Film_country_templates work better than Category:Film_country_list_templates, that would be fine. But cherry picking some of the templates of smaller filmmaking countries out of Category:Film_country_list_templates and listing only those for deletion just doesn't make any sense. So I would go through a general discussion what to do about the film list-templates and return to this once consensus has been reached. And then either delete the whole Category:Film_country_list_templates or keep developing the ones currently listed for deletion.--Termer (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? "Inconsistency" is hardly a reason to keep the above templates. The above templates haven't been "cherry picked", they've been singled out because of their lack of usefulness. The difference between these and the three you mentioned should be patently obvious; those ones are used to navigate between the multiple "films by year" lists that exist for those countries, lists that don't exist for the countries in the templates above. Why do you think we should keep all or delete all when not all of these templates are equal? These tempates can always be recreated in the future if the is a geniune need for them. In the meantime, what purpose do you think is served by having Uruguayanfilmlist in a single article? PC78 (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Te purpose of Uruguayanfilmlist is obviously the same as any other similar template. Just that it needs to have List_of_Uruguayan_films filled out and expanded and broken down into sections and attached to it like any other currently more developed template has it.--Termer (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's great; I suppose you'll be creating those articles in order to justify the template? Film lists for most of the above countries most likely don't need breaking down, but if that ever happens then a proper, useful template can be craeted at that time. PC78 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and create a new, parameterised Foo where piping in "Foo" will add the flag and two base articles. Any that need more later (like the German one has) can easily be split out . Grutness...wha?  23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. But first things first. The Foo template should be created first, all fully developed templates converted from Category:Film_country_list_templates and then once everything over there has become obsolete, delete all. That would also make it easy to recreate any currently underdeveloped templates instead of getting rid of those simply because there is nobody around in Wikipedia who'd take their time to put together a comprehensive list of films made in Uruguay for example.--Termer (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first part's now done, though a lot of the flag/clapperboard icons will either need to be made or (if they exist) moved to a standard name. Grutness...wha?  00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the main concerns here, i.e. that we don't need such templates with a mere two links, and that we don't need such icons in these templates. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Grutness, that is definitely an alternative solution. Now when needed, any national film-list templates can be easily recreated. I withdraw my "keep".--Termer (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PC78 - it's a stepping stone. It cuts us from having dozens of templates to having just one. And it's very easy to think of third or fourth links to go on there if necessary (it now has three, BTW). It also makes it far easier to add a uniform array of other articles across a huge number of countries. Grutness...wha?  06:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No offence intend Grutness but Nationfilmlist is useless, why do we need a template for 3 links max when we can just have a see also on the page? Gnevin (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We can indeed have a see also, and add it separately for evey country, and update them all manually if a further series of articles related to cinema across a whole batch of countries comes along... then again, we can have a template that only needs one addition if such a series arrives, and makes for a series of uniform-looking articles. Grutness...wha?  23:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A stepping stone to what, Gruntness? The number of these templates is not the issue. It's their lack of usefulness that is the problem. We simply don't need a template to navigate between such a small number of articles. PC78 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Grutness, not Gruntness please! It's a stepping stone in two ways. It allows a "gap-filler" for countries until such time as they have specific articles enough to warrant separate templates like the noes for Germany, etc. Knowing Wikipedia, it's also likely that sooner or later someone will come along and write another series of articles such as "Timeline of cinema in Foo" for a couple of dozen countries, which would either need linking individually to every country or simply added once to Nationfilmlist. If you think that the template is redundant or useless, feel free to nominate it for deletion, but I think it's a solution both to the current nomination list and also to likely future needs. Grutness...wha?  23:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, sorry about that! But what I'm saying is that we really don't need a "gap-filler". As for your newly created template, I'm prepared to see where you go with it, but if it's just going to be used to replace all of the above then that kinda defeats the purpose of this TfD, as well as what we've discussed at WT:FILM about getting rid of the icons. PC78 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I hadn't noticed the previous WP:FILM discussion - in which case my new template may not be that useful. It's now a little more bulky, though - certainly more than just two links - so may be worth hanging on to. Have a look at how it now looks, see if it might be useful. Grutness...wha?  23:08, 15 January 2009 (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.