Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

Template:Footer Movies Ajith Kumar

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. Not essential as reader can easily find the other films of Kumar, potential problems with undue weight. Salix (talk): 12:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Ajith Kumar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template listing this particular actor's films is not required as a filmography section already outlined in the actor's Wikipedia article is more than enough. It appears that this template was previously nominated for deletion but the result was apparently "keep" as much editors, who would have otherwise been keen on commenting, did not participate in the discussion. I also suspect the creator of this template as a former suspect of sockpuppetry. I recognize his edits pertaining ONLY to articles related to Ajith Kumar and solely attempts to promote this individual by creating dubious articles, crystal balling, and practicing non-NPOV edits. EelamStyleZ (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Seems a perfectly reasonably navbox to me, all the links are blue and there are many of them. The name I think should be "Movies of Thala" which is the title of the navbox. I have absolutely no interest in these articles at all, but the navbox seems fine to me, its use on any given article can be discussed at that article.

Why would editors "who would otherwise been keen on commenting" not comment, then? What stopped them? There's a fairly blatant TfD template on the article now, was there not then? Could you give a reference to the previous TfD listing? (such as [this difference here]. It was removed with [this edit] and reinstated with [this one], which also changed the display of piped link (from Citizen (film) to Citizen, i.e. not the link but the display, quite normal and proper in a navbox).

I presume you mean User:Asalajith by the "creator of this template" ? If you say a user is using sockpuppetry, you could at least name the user you mean.

I note the nom, User:EelamStyleZ, has posted on the template's talk page to discuss this, at 20.39 on 27 July 2010, after signing the nom here at 20.34. So, has taken it to TfD and as an afterthought left a message for discussion on the talk page? Or is that a misinterpretation?

Please forgive me for thinking this is technically out of order. Discuss on the page first before bringing it here. Everything seems in order in the navbox. Whether it is useful on any particular article can be discussed at those article's talk pages. I have made navboxes and have been undecided whether an article (although it is in the navbox and needs to be as part of the "collection") is important enough to clutter the article up with the navbox. That's a tough editor's choice and I take the rules and a bit of WP:COMMON and then let it be achieved by consensus through the particular article's talk page.

The long and the short of it is that this is an edit war that should not be brought to TfD, and I hope I have added at least the minimum amount of detective work required to make it listed here. Let the edit wars lie where they stand at the articles themselves, for no good use comes by escalating them here.

81.102.142.236 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd like to clear a few things up. First of all, this is not an edit war--I haven't reverted anything there. Nonetheless, I suspect User:Asalajith is a new account of the individual who was convicted for sockpuppetry using the account User:Brajbilla2007. Of course the template looks clean, but my question is: is it important? Nothing stopped other editors from contributing to the previous nomination discussion of this template. Perhaps they were not already aware of the navbox or the deletion discussion. The request for deletion is based on the following:

One can argue that the same should be done to other actors (i.e. give other actors footer templates listing the films they acted in)
This template only lists, what User:Asalajith claims on a response in his own talk page as "hit movies." Thus, this was not created with a neutral point of view nature.
A navbox might be useful for a director or a producer, but is not necessarily appropriate for an actor. Infact, several actors do not have an acting filmography navbox for themselves on Wikipedia.
Ajith Kumar does not deserve a navbox for films. He is only reaching his second decade in his career, where as actors who do have acting filmography navboxes (such as Joan Crawford) have a film career lasting several decades. In comparison, Bruce Lee's navbox lists more than just his acting filmography. Ajith is only an actor.
The title of the template is "Movies of thala," where "thala" is a nickname of Ajith Kumar. Although that can be changed, it's a clear indication that this was made only to glorify and exaggerate the actor.
Overall this template serves absolutely no encyclopedic or academic purpose, it is only a means of promoting the actor.

Finally, the previous TFD nomination discussion is located here. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful in tracking vandalism and update of multiple articles.Anwar (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, useful in tracking vandalism? How so? We should be focusing on how it would help readers, not us editors. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template not required as any films will be adequately linked in the lede and/or cast, or the filmography section per nom. Tassedethe (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wholeheartedly agreeing with Eelamstylez. This template is so not important and really not needed, nobody needs this, first there are lot of other actors who deserve it much more than Ajith. Second, this is just an attempt of the creator to glorify his idol as I earlier mentioned, the words "blockbuster", "thala" and even his username clearly indicating this. And most importantly, what about the neutral point of view? We should keep in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This template includes several films which the user feels are hit films of his idol. The filmography list is absolutely enough and neutral. Johannes003 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree 100% with Johannes003's reasoning as well as the nominator. Airplaneman ✈ 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NPOV and WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 07:08, 9 August 2010 (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:Austin Powers character

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Austin Powers character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox character}}, so I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant and now orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 13:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous statement to support the conversion and deletion of these redundant character templates. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 31 July 2010 (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:MiamiFootballSeasons

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. Redundant nothing to merge as target already has a seasons section. Salix (talk): 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MiamiFootballSeasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to Template:Miami Hurricanes Football. EmanWilm (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{Miami Hurricanes Football}} in a section of its own. Not completely redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 13:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Airplaneman. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 30 July 2010 (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:Celebrity Deathmatch

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Celebrity Deathmatch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles (including main.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Airplaneman ✈ 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 30 July 2010 (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:Rss2.0 item

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. orphaned. Salix (talk): 11:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rss2.0 item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rss2.0 enc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Couple of templates that contain some RSS xml tags. Doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose though. WOSlinker (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - looks like they're orphaned. I'm going with the nominator's rationale on this one as well. Airplaneman ✈ 13:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete both unused, agree w/nom's rationale. Skier Dude (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 9 August 2010 (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:ArrestedDevelopment

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArrestedDevelopment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Airplaneman ✈ 03:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 30 July 2010 (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:Pp-pending

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pp-pending (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pp-pending2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates were created when the pending changes trial began but it was quickly decided that no visual output was desirable. They do populate a few categories but I don't think these are very useful and Special:StablePages does a good job of listing articles which are pending changes protected. Therefore adding these templates to articles is probably a waste of time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its functionality is not needed. Reach Out to the Truth 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the templates simply as a mirror of the other protection templates. But, now, given how pending protection is actually implemented, and how visible markers of the pending protection are already present, I don't think this is necessary. -- tariqabjotu 15:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under CSD G7. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneeded Connormah^talk 04:51, 1 August 2010 (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:Wychavon District parishes

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wychavon District parishes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of the items in the navbox even have their own article! Doesn't aid navigation in any way. It's essentially a list of towns in the district. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citing the above arguments. Airplaneman ✈ 15:34, 7 August 2010 (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:Infobox Venture Bros character

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 deleted Skier Dude (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Venture Bros character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. I replaced the low number of transclusions with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 03:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous statement to support the conversion and deletion of these redundant character templates. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep—If this template inherits from {{Infobox character}} yet contains additional details that are specific to Venture Bros, how can it be considered redundant? Why then isn't {{Infobox character}} redundant with {{Infobox}}? This reasoning appears to be in violation of the "better-defined template" clause of the redundancy rationale.—RJH (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that it is being used to add a bunch of "in universe" cruft related to the specific characters in the series. This is part of a clean up effort to discourage and remove this infobox cruft. If you have an opinion on this matter, please comment at Template:Infobox character as well. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if this is true, then redundancy does not appear to be the proper reason and it is being misused as justification. Why not just say you want to avoid excessive template fragmentation and list that as a valid reason for deletion? That would make the process more transparent.—RJH (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:58, 31 July 2010 (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:Redirect11

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 (non-admin closure) Reach Out to the Truth 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, refers to a very rare situation and probably this can be covered or by {{Redirect7}} or {{Redirect10}} or even by {{Dablink}}. Magioladitis (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This situation has arisen.199.126.224.156 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by indef banned editor's sockpuppet struck. 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete, if the situation has arisen, 1) I don't see it, 2) it has only arisen once in all of Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I created the page for a situation on the top of Deepwater Horizon oil spill that has been since changed so it is only two redirects listed there and I forgot I had even made it at all. I would have just deleted it myself, but I don't know if that would mess up the procedure here. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 15:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I just deleted it as there is no need anymore. if someone could close the discussion here I would appreciate it as I am not sure how. thanks. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 15:19, 27 July 2010 (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.