Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

Module:Z

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).

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted as nonsense by admin Beeblebrox. Subsequently, AnomieBOT determined that the deleted template does not exist and closed the discussion. Fear not the robot uprising if AnomieBOT is at the helm. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Z (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Disruptive creation of an empty template by a user stating that they are "claiming" the title for future use. They have also made an incredibly big deal about staking a claim to the salted Template:Z by posting notes at the administrators' noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion is meant to concern the Module:Z, per a discussion that modules should be discussed here and not at MfD. It seems the links template in use here does not support modules, and Twinkle doesn't do a very good job of it either. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator noteI speedy deleted the actual module as nonsense, it was not a module or template, just part of a weird campaign to “claim” things. The underlying technical issue may be worth taking to WP:VPT and/or WT:TWINKLE. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note Fixed the links template by passing an extra parameter, but module was speedied in the meantime. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. I did post a note about this just now at WT:TFD but if passing an extra parameter is all that's required, then I guess this should be passed off to the Twinkle folks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:35, 31 January 2018 (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).

Template:Magic series

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Main concern (other than a lack of links) is that there might be OR in the connection between the links on the template. No prejudice against recreation if any RSs can be used to definitely show a link (and there are more than three bluelinks created). Primefac (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magic series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has only two articles, the other of which can be accessed from the Magic Pengel: The Quest for Color article. I really don't see the point in keeping this. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even close to enough items to warrant a navigation template. I think the prospect of a "Magic series" is WP:OR to begin with. (This isn't in reference to (Magic the Gathering.) There's no such series article, and no real consistency in naming conventions to suggest that they're part of a series. (Contrary to normal series - something like Sonic the Hedgehog, for example, where games are titled Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Sonic Adventure, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This Namcokid47 guy is clearly on a personal vendetta against me, trying to undo everything that I did without a proper reason. He even deleted an entry in the series just to come here and say that the template "has only two articles". There are a lot of older templates with few links like Tantei Club with only two articles, Ghost Trick with three (just about one game and all the three links are in the article), Rastan Saga with three, Elite Beat Agents with three, Colony Wars with three, Last Blade with three (two about the games and another to the characters), Art Academy with four (just two about the series and two spin-offs: one for Pokémon and another for Disney), Game & Watch with four (two series and two remake series), Golden Sun with four (just three about the series like this one and a link to the original developer), Chase with four, Elevator Action with four, Qix with four, Rhythm with four, Style Savvy with four, Valkyrie with four, Lost Planet with four, Power Stone with four (two about the games, one to the anime and another not even directly related to the series), just to name a few. The majority of them with the same characteristics he gave here as a reason. So I still do not get why. HÊÚL. (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of trying to hunt you down isn't helping your case, and that is childish and ridiculous. You seem to think like I'm some sort of evil puppet master and that you are the "victim" in this. You also haven't provided any valid reasons on why this template should be kept, only relying on teeny tiny templates that no one has bothered to take care of yet. I'm undoing your edits because they either have no sources (or ones that are completely unreliable), your edits are non-constructive or are just original research. You are really becoming incompetent to work with and refuse any advice from me or Sergecross or anyone else and try blaming everything but yourself when your unsourced edits have been undone. I'm begging you, please provide reliable sources when making edits on Wikipedia, and stop trying to lash out at us when you are proven wrong over a bunch of unsourced and originally researched edits. Grow up. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom was mistaken removing an article, it looks like the same series to me (albeit a different platform). There are 3 entries, and I think the template could be expanded with some work. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That game, according to the article, has nothing to do with the Magic games, thus I removed it. You also haven't given any articles that could be added to this template. Namcokid47 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That game, according to the articles, has EVERYTHING to do with the Magic games. Here and here. It seems like a problem of selective reading. HÊÚL. (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because those games feature characters from the Magic Penal games doesn't mean they are official entries. Should Bubble Bobble be part of the Space Invaders series because they have characters from those games? It just doesn't make sense. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seriously, if every game a character appeared in was part of a series with the game where that character first appeared, then Mario Bros., Sonic the Hedgehog, Fire Emblem, and Splatoon would all be part of one massive series.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact your example do not fit here. All three games are from Taito, in all of them you have to collect monsters and draw, all the three have Zoe and Taro and Graffiti Kingdom has Pengel. And in a timeline each game occurs at a different period of time. HÊÚL. (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are just going to give a brief overview of the series? If a reliable source cannot be found that proves that LostMagic is an entry, then don't even bother adding it. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So where is your reliable source saying that Graffiti Kingdom is an entry? Because on this game there are only cameos. On LostMagic the is a whole mission with Magic Pengel characters. HÊÚL. (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about YOU. YOU need to find a reliable source and not expect everyone to do it for you. I don't think you understand what I'm even saying. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looked over the three component articles, and as Sergecross said, there's no indication that this "Magic series" is anything more than original research. Only three articles is too small for a navbox anyway; Beelezzasolo says it could be expanded but gives no suggestion of what articles could be added. HÊÚL, the fact that there are small navboxes which no one has gotten around to deleting does not mean that consensus supports keeping them; see also WP:Other stuff exists. Accusing Namcokid47 of being out to get you doesn't help your case either, even apart from the fact that you don't give a single piece of evidence to support your accusation.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no parent article and we can connect three articles using the "see also" section. Frietjes (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply on account of there only being two entries. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three entries. HÊÚL. (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two entries. LostMagic simply features cameos, and you haven't found anything about that game being a sequel to Magic Pengel. Namcokid47 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three entries. In fact Graffiti Kingdom that simply features cameos. On LostMagic Zoe and Taro are part of a game mission. HÊÚL. (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually believe that cameos count as sequels in a series, then Space Invaders, Bubble Bobble, KiKi KaiKai and Darius would all be part of this one massive franchise. It just does not make any sense. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the one that believes that cameos count as sequels is YOU. Beacause the cameos happen on Graffiti Kingdom not on LostMagic. On LostMagic the characters appear as the focus of a mission. HÊÚL. (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what you are saying anymore? You were the one who suggested that LostMagic is a sequel to Magic Pengel and you still haven't even attempted to show anyone a source claiming so. You are wasting my time. Namcokid47 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also these sources show that Graffiti Kingdom is a sequel to Magic Pengel. Namcokid47 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just like these ? HÊÚL. (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links provide any information that LostMagic is a sequel. Yes, they seem to finally be reliable, but they don't make any reference to Magic Pengel/Ragugaki Okoku, Namcokid47 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first and the last one do. HÊÚL. (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please specify where, then? Because I've looked around through those links and haven't found anything. You can't just give me a website that talks about LostMagic and pass it off as your reasoning. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If LostMagic is officially part of the series, a reliable source would solve all of this. Until then, mentioning a cameo appearance of some character would be a better option, but again, only with some sort of reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2018 (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).

Template:Metacritic GOTY

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metacritic GOTY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a jury-voted list, it's just whatever game had the highest Metacritic score in a given year; basically trivia given semi-official status. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does not make sense to organize a template like this. It doesn't aid in navigation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I was thinking if there was any value in knowing the highest aggregate rated game by year, but while there might be, it's not a jury-based award and shouldn't be navigated this way. --Masem (t) 17:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It could still probably be added to Metacritic's article, it just doesn't need a navbox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This concept is geared towards a listing within an article, not a navbox. The whole point of a navbox is to ease navigating between the different articles, which no one is likely to want to do in this case, because the articles aren't directly related to each other; they're only indirectly related through their Metacritic scores.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. Plus everyone knows Pubg was the best game to come out in 2017. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lordtobi (✉) 09:09, 2 February 2018 (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).

Template:GCRTA BRT navbox

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GCRTA BRT navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthLine bus stops, all the bus stop articles in this navbox (except Louis Stokes Station at Windermere) were merged into HealthLine. - Eureka Lott 15:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May have add sense at one point, but not anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2018 (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).

Template:Bindass Programmes

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bindass Programmes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure if this should be on Wikipedia. The list is outdated and not all the original series have their own Wikipedia page. User 261115 (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All non-articles/redlinks in navboxes should be removed, leaving this with only three valid entries, which isn't enough to keep it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nearly every article here doesn't exist. Even if these were removed, there would only be a small number left, making this unnecessary. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2018 (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).