Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 16

< January 15	January 17 >

January 16

Template:G14

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 already under discussion on 2008 January 15 (link). Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The G-14 organisation is due to be disbanded, which will make this template redundant. – Pee Jay 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:DeadRising

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. нмŵוτн τ 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A two item nav-box is not useful in any way. Should be deleted. MASEM 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first article in the template redirects to the main article. The soundtrack article in the template is already mentioned in the main article. This is redundant information. Hewinsj (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally redundant and unnecessary. JPG-GR (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPG-GR. Happy‑melon 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Pryde of the X-Men

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. нмŵוτн τ 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a navigation box that links on a single, minor point of cominality, an animated pilot episode that was never picked up for a series. — J Greb (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Pairadox (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep And change template. There is a need for a general X-men template. So instead of deleteing it and losing all of that work how about we just change the template? Whispe ring 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response- there already is a general X-Men template "Template: X-Men". This template is too focused, and revolves around a singular minute aspect of that universe. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Didn't know that. Whispe ring 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Since when does Pryde of the X-Men get its own template?! fhb3 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Susquehanna Valley Transportation

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. нмŵוτн τ 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is no longer necessary as it has been split into multiple templates. — Dough4872 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - he speaks the truth - now have four. — master son^{T - C} 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The split eliminated a need for this template. --Son (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd vote to clear this out even if it wasn't deprecated. I trust the new templates look less like a linkfarm. Happy‑melon 13:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fred Astaire Films

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 deletion of actor templates, no consensus for director templates. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template only partially, and with less clarity, replicates film appearances already outlined on another page. Film navbox templates are not approved for use, or as a substitute for filmographies, by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers — Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general consensus not to have such navbox templates -- a filmography on the person's article suffices. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have combined these similar nominations into one. I have no opinion at this time (just doing some cleanup)
Delete I find these more of a eyesore than being helpful, especially when all the films do not have their own article and the templates are full of red links — Pinkadelica (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my view, long filmographies, which often disfigure articles on films stars and contain the same number of red links as a template, are a very inferior solution to this issue. Instead, where a template exists, a filmography should be replaced by it, thus saving space and greatly improving the layout of the article. The hide/show function allows such templates to be discretely and neatly placed at the bottom of an article. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers have not considered the status of film navboxes so they have neither approved nor disapproved them. D7240 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add that Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is an excellent example of the extensive use of hidden navboxes to improve the layout of an article. D7240 (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is also the location of a fairly inequivocal consensus which states that the ideal format for filmographies is a wikitable. This is the consensus of a large and well-organised wikiproject (a task force of Wikipedia's largest WikiProject, WikiProject Biography). Happy‑melon 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the consensus established here and at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that these filmography templates are an unnecessary burden on the bottom of film articles. Happy‑melon 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no consensus established here yet, and not everyone participated in the one at that Wikiproject. A consensus is not its own argument, in any case. Esn (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Huh? I don't understand. On every page that the Harold Lloyd template appears except for one, the information contained in it is not duplicated. It serves as a quick way to flit between his different feature films, which are by far his best-known body of work (as opposed to the Harold Lloyd filmography article, which mostly lists his hundreds of early short films). I think it makes more sense to merge Harold Lloyd's feature films article with Harold Lloyd filmography if you feel that there is too much redundance. One more thing: if someone decided that film navbox templates are no longer allowed (this is news to me), shouldn't everything in here be deleted? Esn (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment: Everything that is in the Harold Lloyd template exists on the Harold Lloyd filmography page (which contains just around 200 films) as well as the feature films page, which at some future date should be combined into one page. As far as the film navbox templates question, that hasn't been called into question as a whole. However, the film actors navbox templates have been. Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has a prescribed format for filmographies, which is a table. When a navbox has been substituted for a filmography table, it is to be removed. When it duplicates what already exists, then it is unnecessary and redundant. In the case of the Harold Lloyd template, it is doubly so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me exactly where this consensus exists? I, personally (though I am NOT part of that wikiproject, and did not see the discussion), have found these templates to be very useful, and I don't understand why they should be deleted. They are no less useful than any other templates. Esn (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, I would like to know if anybody has a link to the exact place where it was decided that navbox templates are a bad idea for actors but a good idea for directors. I would like to see who exactly participated in this discussion, what sorts of arguments were raised, and if those arguments are relevant to all of these templates. Esn (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in general with possible exceptions. Navboxes are supposed to present a series of articles on one topic, or at least share some defining characteristic. While any given film's actors are some of its primary characteristics, there are too many that film articles will go out of hand. For instance, The Sky's the Limit links to Top Hat only because of the Fred Astaire connection, so that sort of navigation should take place from Fred Astaire chronology of performances. The tables there aren't the easiest to browse through because there are so many of them, but that is the place where all the links are presented with context to show the non-essential way in which they are connected. Director navboxes, on the other hand, have a greater claim to usefulness and a lesser claim to cluttering. As for single-use on actor articles only, the wikitable format is much more readable as it's not purposely squished and can present more relevant details (a compact list can be styled without the use of {{navbox}} anyway). –Pomte 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Director navboxes, on the other hand, have a greater claim to usefulness and a lesser claim to cluttering". Really? I think it should be on a case-by-base basis. Nobody remembers the five directors of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, for example. On the other hand, nobody refers to Harold Lloyd's feature films as anything other than "Harold Lloyd films". The names of the directors are nearly irrelevant because Lloyd's creative influence was so great. Esn (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox for every director isn't a good idea either, and I don't advocate for all of them. Editors can on a case-by-case basis decide which actors are such a dominant presence as to warrant filmography navboxes. –Pomte 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you completely. However, your opinion is at odds with most of the other editors here, who seem to believe that a director is ALWAYS more important than an actor in a film. In the case of Harold Lloyd's films, for example, this is not true at all. Esn (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Rename to The Musical Films of Fred Astaire: Taking Ponte's point regarding the defining characteristics, and in the context of Astaire only, and citing Template:FredandGinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as a precedent. My concern is to ensure that consumers looking for Astaire's musicals would not have to wade through an otherwise excellent chronology so I propose renaming the template to The Musical Films of Fred Astaire and limiting it to the thirty-one films in question. The defining characteristic here is his status as the pre-eminent exponent of dance on film, which is far more important than his role as a film actor. Using the concept that an actor template cannot be generic but must be limited to a well-defined subset based on a defining characteristic of obvious utility to a consumer greatly limits the scope for navbox proliferation. D7240 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Absolutely not - filmographies should certainly NOT be converted to navigation boxes like above. Can I just say in answer to D7240, having started WP:Actors and Filmmakers myself ,the project disapproves of navigation boxes for single actors. The guideline for a filmography is clear on the project page - for instance see the Preity Zinta article -we should be aiming to have a detailed table for a filmography like this as it is not only meant to list the films but provide info on the role played, awards and notes etc and in same cases co-stars and directors are cited. There are countless scruffy lists that need cleaning up but changing to a navbox is not the way to go - in my opinion it is lazy rather than adding a proper filmography. In regards to the navigation boxes which are used in multiple articles they are more useful but unnecessary, when a see also can connect to Harold Lloyd filmography at the end of the page and link to the full list -saving cluttering up articles. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but you're likely to be saddled with "horrible filmography syndrome" for a long time to come. If, as a Joe Soap visitor to Wikipedia, I want to look through the Film Noirs of Humphrey Bogart, The Musical Films of Gene Kelly, The Westerns of John Wayne or Gary Cooper or James Stewart, The Gangster Films of James Cagney, what do I do?. It should be simple and user-friendly. I can create a navbox for the Films Directed by Gene Kelly, but not his musical films. The notion that works of film production staff are worthy of navboxes, but subsets of actor's works recognized as culturally important aren't is an inconsistency that baffles me. D7240 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with D7240's comments and I wish that more people would respond to what he and I are saying, rather than just relying on the sheer numbers of the deletionists to carry this through with no need for discussion. Esn (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately nobody else has seen fit to evaluate or comment on my proposal above, where I specifically suggested limiting such navboxes to subsets (i.e. a film genre) of actor's works recognised as culturally important. Which is a pity, as the casual browser would really benefit from and see the utility of such tools, which as subsets, could only complement not replace an actor filmography. Indeed, it could be made a requirement that a wikitabled filmography exist as a prequisite to creating such a navbox, thus helping get rid of those horrible lists. Instead they are forced to switch back and forth between a film article and an actor filmography of widely varying degrees of consistency, clutter and utility, often with no assistance in exploring an actor's most valued contributions to a film genre. D7240 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: That's one of the problems with responses being sprinkled through out the page. I actually did talk about this to a degree further down in regard to templates such as "Astaire-Rogers films", etc. I said "Those types of templates would be a specific subset of all the films in which someone appeared, and would represent a cross-reference." This deletion proposal isn't about setting a flat precedent omitting all templates across the board. It's about deleting templates that, for the most part, are a copy of filmographies already in existence and are no more specific in their composition than the filmography section or page from which they derive. For some odd reason, people have almost turned this into a debate about templates existing at all. If that were the case, I would have proposed all the templates in Category:Film actor templates for deletion.

What puzzles me about the defense of a couple of these templates is that at the moment, they don't have the specifics for which the argument is being made. For example, the Harold Lloyd template. There is a page for Harold Lloyd. Then there is a page for his filmography. Then there is a page for feature films. Then there is this template. One must go to the filmography page to discover there is a page for feature films. The template is on the main page, but it doesn't lead the reader to the feature length page. I'm puzzled by how these issues make the template of benefit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also agree with Blofeld's comments above. The main problem with the nav box in my opinion is that it limits the filmography to just a shopping list of links, without giving any information. Obviously this is the point - to allow navigation, but that is all it allows, while the filmography allows both navigation and the possibility of recording relevant information. Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the point of templates to be articles. Their point is to allow quick navigation between related articles. You can have both a filmography and a template, each serving a different purpose. Esn (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Chaplin and Keaton templates, as they directed most of their own films - IE convert them both into director only films. Delete the rest. Lugnuts (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could go for Harold Lloyd too. He had substantial influence on the final cut of his films, although he never credited himself, and he was the writer for most of them as well. But in any case, why are director templates allowed and actor templates are not? Can anybody explain this? Esn (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because usually one film has one director, and hence one template. Imagine a film article having a template for each notable actor in it and their entire filmography attached to it. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What? Have you never heard of collapsible navboxes? Even if we there was a template for every notable actor in an article, it would hardly take up more than a few lines. Is this such a hard price to pay for something which will be useful to someone? Please notice that almost all of the articles in which these templates are used have only one or two templates! They're not even taking up a lot of space. Is the deletionist sentiment so strong in this community that two extra lines of text must be deleted simply because only some people will ever use these nav boxes? Maybe we ought to get rid of the "See Also" section as well, then. I have been trying to understand your points, but nobody has so far been able to answer my questions or defend their positions very well. Therefore, my vote is Strong Keep, because of all of the reasons and doubts that I have expressed in this post and the ones above. Even if it is impossible to keep all of them, I would like the Harold Lloyd template at least to be kept, because he was not only THE main actor in his films, he was also their producer, writer, and often director (though for the last two he was always uncredited). Of course, this goes for Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton as well. Esn (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I simply see no logic in your argument. If one is looking at a film's page and wonders what other films "Little Johnny" was in, one only need click one link to go to his page, where there is a detailed filmography table containing not only the other films he was in, but in some cases (and more with time) whether he won an award for it, or also directed it, yada. If there is a collapsible template of "Little Johnny Films" then one also has to click one link - to open the template. There one will see only a listing of films. So how does the template make it easier and less trouble to navigate around to learn about the films? That makes no sense to me. As far as the Harold Lloyd template is concerned, it only has 18 total distinct films on it. All I know from the template is that some were silent and some where with sound. What have I learned about the role of Harold Lloyd in his films? I STILL have to go to his page to hopefully see if he had other influences over them. I may as well have gone to his page from the wikilink in the article I'm reading. The logic here is senseless to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: How is this any different from director templates, or musician templates? The point of the template is not to replace an article, it is to make navigation between strongly related articles easier. Since Lloyd had the most creative influence on his films (he hired large teams of people, but always had the final say on what stayed in), and all of his films are in a recognizable style, I would say that the articles count as being "strongly related". This is not about information, it's about ease of navigation. In order to find another film by Harold Lloyd without the template, a reader would have to click on the "Harold Lloyd" link, scroll down to the "filmography" which is in a separate article, scroll down his hundreds of short films until they come to the feature film section (for which he is chiefly remembered) and click on that link. With the template, all they would have to do is "uncollapse" the template (which does not count as opening a new window; it happens much quicker) and click on the next film. Why is this a bad thing? Now, if there was a category called "Harold Lloyd films", I might agree with you that the template is redundant (although clicking on the category still takes more time than expanding a collapsed template). However, there is no such category. Esn (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete filmographies, keep listings of directed films -- Templates such as Template:Robert Redford Films should not be included here, but instead pruned to remove the filmography listing, and only include the listing of films directed by the individual. Anyone mind if I remove this one template from this list, and then remove the list of films Redford acted in from the template, and only include films he directed? Cirt (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Update: Please do not delete Template:Robert Redford Films. I removed the filmography, and kept only films directed by Robert Redford. Cirt (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all actor filmography templates. Dozens of these things have been deleted before for the very same reasons given above, so there is ample precedent. PC78 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all absolutely no need for actor filmography templates, that is what the actor article is for. While the Robert Redford template was cleaned up, I also think it should be removed as he doesn't appear to have directed enough films to warrant a template. Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actor filmography templates are needed because they allow the reader to quickly navigate between related articles, something which would take a lot more mouse clicks and searching to do if they did not exist. The "price" of this increased ease-of-use is one or two extra lines of text, which is the amount of space that a collapsed navbox takes up. Can you please explain why you feel that this is not a legitimate need? Esn (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all actor filmography templates. Buy I AGREE with Cirt and STRONGLY KEEP any and all director templates (like Redford's). ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 03:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At the moment, I don't have an opinion regarding "films directed by" templates, but I'd suggest that rather than try to rescue the filmography templates already nominated for deletion, it would likely be less work in the long run to create new ones that are titled as directed by or move them to new pages. As they stand, they would remain on the list as the current names. That would distinguish them from the actor filmography templates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why do you feel that directors' templates are so much more important? Please see my earlier question about the films of Harold Lloyd (over which he had tremendous influence, since he was also the producer and uncredited writer/director) vs. Something like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which had 5 different directors whom nobody remembers today. How about this proposition: the actors' template may be kept if the actor had a bigger influence on his films than the director(s). Esn (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I don't feel that director templatse are more important. In fact, I said I don't have an opinion on them. My comment regarding templates for actors who also direct was pretty clear. In the event that a director template would remain, it would simply be less work to create a new one than try to weed out the films he/she directed from the "acting only" ones, given that each would - or should - be renamed. I wasn't advocating that we have director templates. Having said that, I do see a valid use for templates such as "Astaire-Rogers films" or "Andy Hardy films" or "Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland films," for examples. Those types of templates would be a specific subset of all the films in which someone appeared, and would represent a cross-reference. I hope your proposition was facetious, because it makes no sense. Who would make the POV determination of how, when and who had a bigger influence on an actor's films? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: As for directors template inclusion: It's called the Auteur theory! As Hitch supposedly once quipped, "Actors are just cattle." Luigibob (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are falling back to quoting someone else and completely ignoring my point. Why don't you address what I actually said, hmm, or perhaps research the degree of control that certain actors had over their films and over their directors? Here it is again, stated more eloquently: "In some cases, the directors are the cattle." Such is the case for Harold Lloyd's films of the 1920s and 1930s. Esn (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My recommendation was designed to stir the pot. Because right now, some people have made the "POV determination" that actors NEVER have the most influence on their films, and that directors are ALWAYS the driving force, and thus deserve their own templates (I know that it wasn't you). This is demonstratably untrue. Esn (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.