Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 20



Template:Too many 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)



Per Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 10; using a template to tag an article which has too many templates is clearly absurd and counterproductive – be bold and fix the problem instead. How many is too many anyway? Thankfully this template is unused. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete But sometimes I wish I could slap this template on an article!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – I'll repeat (part of) my comment about this type of template from the March 10 TFD: "self-defeating and overly bureaucratic". –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:31, 26 March 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:TheofficeusEpisodes

 * 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)



There is no reason to have template that lists all of the episodes of The Office, no other television show here has a template like this. There is already an entire article on Wikipedia that lsits all of the episodes and webisodes of The Office. Also, if this sereis goes on for five more seasons, then we'd be looking at a very large template. Nahald (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sorry to say, but your original premise is false.  The first show I looked at contains an almost identical template - Template:LostEpisodes.  Multiple shows also have templates containing the episodes for each season, where this template simply retracts the need for multiple templates by substituting one.  Although there is an article for this same material, the current medium provides a space-friendly way to have these episodes presented.  And length should have no bearing on whether this should be kept or deleted.  Mastrchf  (t/c) 21:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mastrchf91Kuralyov (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mastrchf91 and my own beliefs that this is still a useful template. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mastrchf91. Reywas92 Talk  12:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree that the nominator's statement implies that the template should be deleted. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 14:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mastrchf91. What a waste of time. --César (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In spite of people so far sayign that this template should be kept, I have yet to see a single convincing argument. The only argument I've seen so far is "well Lost has one too," but that is only one example. Besides, as a fan of Lost myself, I know how fans of the show have a bad case of information overload which can often reflect itself in the way the show is represented on Wikipedia. But as for the issue with this particular template, I really can see no reason that this Template serves. This template is basically just a copy of the List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes. What's the point of having a template for something that we already have an entire article for? And on that note, last I knew, when a template is made for a given topic, its function is to link to major articles relating to the subject matter, not to just focus on a specific area of the subject matter. If we did that with every major franchise in film and television, we'd have pages littered with templates dealing with episodes, characters, actors, and various other subjects. We don't need a template to list episodes from a television series, the links provided on the Template:Theofficeus template are sufficient enough for users to find a particular episode that they are looking for. –Nahald (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't seen a convincing argument because you choose not to. I've not only rebuffed every argument that you had to delete it, I've also made arguments for why it should be kept.  Mastrchf  (t/c) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the real issue of this is that in the end, the template only serves for the benifits of fans of the show, but need I remind you that Wikipedia does not pander to the needs of fans. I can't tell you how many articles for fictitious characters I've seen reduced to a brief entry in a list of characters from a particular franchise. Please explain to me how a template with the names of episodes of a television series would in any way aid a person who is either unfamailiar with or only somewhat familiar the series in question? It wouldn't, there is absolutely no use for this template other than for the fans to conveniently navigate from one episode article to another. And again, Wikipedia does not pander to fans, for that go to |The Office Wiki. On an unrelated note, does anyone know the interwiki link for that site? Just curious because I tried looking for it for that link a couple sentences back but I was unable to find it on the interwiki map, and I figure it should probably be added for future reference. –Nahald (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, your original premise and assumptions are false. An extremely simple reason someone unfamiliar with the show would find the template useful: someone comes to the site, remembers the title of and finds the particular episode of interest to him that he had previously seen (he's only seen two episodes), but then realizes that he wants to find another episode, but he doesn't know the title.  He remembers that the episode involved a seminar where a man talked about diversity.  A quick look reveals, Aha!  Diversity Day!  No need to find the "List of..." article, something that someone unfamiliar with the site would most likely be terribly troubled to find.  Now, let me ask you a question.  How does this template hurt the article?  As far as I see, it aids people familiar with the site, it aids people unfamiliar with the site; it aids people familiar with The Office, and it aids people unfamiliar with the show.  Mastrchf  (t/c) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of whether it hurts anything, it's a question of neccessity. And regarding your example, not all the episodes have names that link it so clearly to the subject matter (e.g. "Cocktails"). Besides, I know plenty of regular viewers of The Office who couldn't tell you the name of a particular episode. You can make up all these reasons for why this template is useful but I'll tell you right now: In my time at Wikipedia I've seen articles and templates that seemed a hell of a lot more useful than this one deleted or merged with other articles countless times, and I highly doubt this one will be any exception, even if my nomination is turned down. In fact, I'm willing to make a bet that this template won't be here two years from now… Eh who am I kidding, no I'm not! I'm a cheap bastard. –Nahald (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And in my time at Wikipedia, I've seen a lot of mistakes made. I'm trying to prevent one more mistake.  Mastrchf  (t/c) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The navigation is useful, and no one has even suggested that one of the template deletion criteria (supra) are met. Jonathan Gordon 07:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogordon (talk • contribs)
 * 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 NCIS season 1 episode list

 * 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.  So Why  20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)



Orphaned template with various errors and no indication as to its proposed purpose. The template is not an infobox, it's a list of episodes. I suspect it was never completed. AussieLegend (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – The template was created for use in infoboxes in articles about individual NCIS episodes (see here for an example of how it was used). Since most or all NCIS episodes articles have been turned into redirects, there is no need for this template anymore. In addition, the previous/next format used here is better than duplicating an entire season's episode list in every article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 26 March 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:lb to st lb

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)



This is unused and redundant to convert. Also the name is a little misleading: no mention of kilogram(me)s but it does convert to them. J IM ptalk·cont 10:47, 20 March 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.