Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:27, 18 January 2010

January 17

Template:Actors in Law and Order

Template:Actors in Law and Order (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per current consensus, actors should not be included in template boxes. However, this template is nothing but a list of actors who have been regulars or recurring in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. A removal of all actors names from this template would leave a completely blank template. Therefore, the only reasonable course of action is deletion. See also Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Template:Actors in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Redfarmer (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete The navigation box merely links between actors who happen to have appeared on the same show, some not even at the same time. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Islamic Solidarity Games

Template:Islamic Solidarity Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, which are all easily navigable from one another. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:MLB pitching coaches by team

Template:MLB pitching coaches by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is along the lines of many previously deleted MLB templates which link together articles that are only tangentially related. There were templates for Yankees' outfielders, Tigers' second basemen, and so forth. They were determined to be unnecessary because there is no lead article linking them all together. This is even less relevant because there are no "lists of pitching coaches" to link together either. The format here was taken from the template about team managers, but this template, which links merely to the team articles, doesn't have nearly as much utility. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are templates for offensive/defensive coordinators, so it's not unprecedented.--Levineps (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom also. There is also a related template for {{MLB bench coaches by team}} — X96lee15 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: There's one for managers, having one for pitching coaches would also make sense.--] (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Redirect7

Template:Redirect7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following a declined prod some months ago I ll repeat the same argument: Unused and redundant template, way to many redirect templates already. Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This one has valid uses in the redirect hierarchy of templates, and it is not redundant with any of the others I could see (meaning it didn't exactly duplicate the functions of any of the others). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know if there is an easy way to check whether this template is currently unused. It was definitely used at Input/output until it was removed by the user who next proceeded to prod the template as being "unused". Like Nihonjoe, I don't see how its function is subsumed by other redirect templates.  --Lambiam 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How many article you know that have 3 redirects and all need disambiguation? -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Nihonjoe, and restore uses that were removed. And I have seen articles that have three redirects needing disambiguation, though they had three {{redirect}} templates on them instead. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete One use case isn't enough to justify a template of this weirdness. If it were really needed at some article, just subst it and delete the template. The lone example given, however, is atrocious, and should just have a simple DAB hatnote going to a DAB page that lists all of these things, not a disambiguatory mess at the top of the page that is longer than many article's leads. PS: All the pro/con stuff about the prod is irrelevant, since WP:PROD is only for articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Redirectpeople

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

It can be sufficiently replaced by {{redirect}}. I found only 3 tranclusions and one was this. Unnecessary and now orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: Redundant, disused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Templates

Template:WikiProject Templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template to put on the talk page of every single template on the system is pointless (and that is what this is for - see it's own documentation - and is being used that way, since I found it on a random template's talk page). It is a complete duplication of the function of Category:Misplaced Pages templates (there would ultimately be an exact 1:1 overlap), and the goal is effectively impossible to achieve (even if a bot tagged every template talk page, creating such pages where they were missing, a zillion templates are created per day and most editors of them would never both to tag the new ones).

This is very distinct from Template:WikiProject Inline Templates, since those templates are all of-a-piece and should not be modified by editors who do not understand their workings, consensus about minimizing the distractingness of their appearance, etc.; it is valuable to direct editors to a project about them. By contrast, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Templates is almost as vague as a WikiProject Articles, and won't serve any such function for average visitors to any given template's talk page. Anyway, not every internal-process WikiProject needs a banner. In fact, most of them do not. This one isn't one of the few exceptions.

PS: Assuming that the project even survives (I suspect that it will prove to be too general for useful collaboration), I can see the pagename at issue here eventually being populated by a special project banner that is only for use on "Wikpedia talk:"-namespace pages, so that pages like Misplaced Pages:Template messages can have their talk pages tagged as within the scope of a template-management project, and with code in the new template to put up screaming-red warnings if anyone attempts to use it in any other namespace, especially the "Template talk:" namespace. But that isn't this template, which should be deleted before someone wastes a bunch of time AWBing or bot'ing it onto tens of thousands of template talk pages and annoying every editor with a template in their watchlist.

PPS: The talk page of the template's creator, User talk:16@r is a truly unbelievable litany of deletion notices of every kind. In over 4 years, I have never seen anything like it. It's as if the user is intentionally creating articles, templates, file uploads, redirects, etc., etc., that have no value and in many cases negative value. Not sure that's technically relevant to this particular TFD, but there's a very clear disruptive editing pattern here, and actually deploying this template as it is intended to be deployed would indeed be disruptive. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see this as any different than any other WikiProject template: it should be placed on every article or non-article talk page under the scope of the project. This template is hardly disruptive (at least no more so than any other project template), and if an editor gets annoyed that a project banner is placed on the talk page of a page they are watching, then maybe they need to get a new hobby and stop owning the templates. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Please re-examine the nomination more closely. I covered in some detail why this banner's use is not like other project templates. If something in particular is unclear, then I'll be happy to re-explain it. I have taken a stab at this below. Perhaps the nomination was poorly worded or something — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 09:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I do see this as different from other WikiProject banners. Other WikiProjects tag pages so that they can keep track of and assess pages under the scope of the project, where those pages constitute a percentage of the total number of pages in the various namespaces. WikiProject Templates does not carry out assessments and the scope of its project is the entire template namespace (i.e., 100% of pages in one namespace). In other words, the scope of the project is already clearly-defined as any page in the template namespace and there is nothing gained by adding this tag to ~200,000 template talk pages. –Black Falcon 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also delete any template talk pages that have no page history other than the addition of the template. –Black Falcon 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Right; when the tag is removed from a "Template talk:" page, it can be speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G6, uncontroversial maintenance) if it ends up being empty as a result. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep this shouldn't be placed on templates, except "Misplaced Pages templates", but it probably should be placed in relation to instructions, essays, guidelines and policy pages. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Commment: Even if this banner were only placed on "Misplaced Pages templates" by which I am guessing that you mean internal, self-referential templaets instead of those used in the article namespace, that would still be thousands and thousands of taggings and talk page creations for no reason, and there would not be any effective way of enforcing this - editors would continually be tagging articlespace templates' talk pages with the banner. The nomination already said why not to keep this: The bad template at issue here is intended specifically for use on "Template talk:" pages and says so very plainly, and is being abused in that fashion right now. It is not proposed that the name at which this template resides be SALTed. If the project wakes up and wants to create a new banner at that pagename, that doesn't lend itself to (much less directly encourage) misuse, then they can. There's a lot of "if" latent in all that, and how many "Template talk" pages are going to be needlessly created and slapped with this template before then? Are you going to run AWB for hours and hours cleaning it up, or spend even more time writing and testing a bot to deal with it? I'm sure not.

Not every page needs a tag, and not every project needs to tag pages with a banner. The more internal it is, less topical it is and the less article-focused, then the less a project needs to even have a banner at all. This project is very far along the wikigeeky and WP-self-referential side of that spectrum. There is no particular reason that Misplaced Pages-namespace pages like guidelines need to have their talk pages tagged by a project like this except in unusual cases of very close collaboration (thus the WP:WPFT banner at WT:MOSICON). Venues like Misplaced Pages talk:Substitution or Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages or Help talk:Magic words are about templates, generally, but nothing bad has resulted from WikiProject Templates not asserting tagged scope over those pages. Show me the collaborative and encyclopedia improving purpose of such tagging. Which isn't even the issue here: Template talk tagging is, the expressed purpose of the deletion candidate. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Update: By way of analogy, there is a new and worthwhile proposed WikiProject Talk pages for maintainance & cleanup of talk pages site-wide. If that project produced a template the purpose of which was tagging every single talk page on the system as being within the project's "scope" it would be TfD'd in five seconds flat. There's no difference at all between these cases. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Avatar (film)

Template:Avatar (film) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only really navigates six articles related to Avatar (along with James Cameron) and all of them are easily navigable from the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Prose exists for a reason, and fancruft exists just to irritate us. >;-) PS: A right-hand sidebar nav template might be more viable, but still, 6–7 articles seems too few to justify something like that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: (full disclosure: I'm the template's creator) Maybe the articles are easily navigable from the main article. However, they are not from the other articles, where it's largely only James Cameron and Avatar (2009 film) which are linked. Also, the template has considerable room to grow. There are three books that might have articles or subsections about them (a novelisation, a book about the art design and a book about the design of the history of Pandora) and a potential of (at least) two more movies (and the games and books associated with them). --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 16:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This is all a wonderful argument for improving the articles, not keeping this template. For the "maybe later..." stuff, see below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. These kinds of navigation templates are very common, and the point about them being easily navigable from the main article is a red herring. The point of the template (and why it should be kept) is because it makes it easy to navigate from/to any of the articles under the template's scope regardless of which article you're viewing. The potential for expansion is also worth noting due to the movie's success; it's very likely there will be more movies since this one has made well over $1 billion USD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Such templates are common for complex topics with a great number of articles, not for micro-subjects like this that are popular because the movie just came out (such templates are very regularly deleted here). The category is plenty sufficient. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it helps navigation. They're articles that might not be founf other wise. There's no reason why prose should cancel out the usefulness of this. Both can exist. I think the amount links only barely justify it, but the possibility for expansion resolves this (IMO, at least), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - This template helps people navigate multiple articles that are avatar-related. December21st2012Freak at ≈ 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I feel its a great template that helps with navigation of "Avatar" related articles; and in time, as the franchise grows even further, it will prove even more of a necessity. DrNegative (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Cameron has said there will probably be sequels. Plus, there's a language, books, characters, a lot of pages that can be added to the template.71.178.226.55 (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Multi-party reply: As for future book articles and stuff, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. "It might get improved later" could be used as a "keep" rationale in every single TfD ever filed, if it were valid. :-) Almost all of the "keep" !votes above, from the template author on down, simply echo this invalid point, so I'll address all of them at once: We don't care what James Cameron says he may do; he could drop dead tonight. Of course there are characters. It would be a dull movie without them. But there aren't character articles to put in this template and hopefully there...won't...ever...be. That there's a language (sorta) isn't relevant, since that's already in the template (not to mention that it's not necessarily viable long-term as a separate article). Books? If they were original non-fanfic stories, maybe. But even books exactly like the three you mention, for the world's most popular and enduring fictional universes from Middle Earth to Star Wars to Marvel Comics, do not have articles and never will, because they are not notable in their own right; so, the books thing is a handwave. Look, I'm as much of a sci-fi fan as the next geek and even a fan of this film, but please read WP:AADD, folks. Every "keep" reason given here so far is covered there, under interesting keywords like "CRYSTAL" (a matter of policy), "ILIKEIT", "OTHERSTUFF", "ITSUSEFUL", and hints of "INTHENEWS" and "NOHARM", with the sole exception of the template maybe actually aiding in navigation. It's a question of whether a near-empty but huge template like this actually does so, when there are so few topics to cover that all six articles could easily link to all 5 of their siblings, and every one of them will be in the same category (we do have categories for a reason, namely navigation). Prose and category are plenty, otherwise every single topic with two or more articles could have a template like this. There's just not enough complexity here to necessitate a navbox. That's all I feel inclined to say on the matter. I don't hate this template or whatever and my life will be neither richer nor poorer without it, I'm just not inclined to let "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" drown out clearer rationales in a deletion discussion, as often happens when something comes for XfD and happens to be related to a presently popular media phenomenon. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Otherhurricaneuses3

Template:Otherhurricaneuses3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too narrow and orphan. All hurricanes use {{Otherhurricaneuses}}. Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment this template is ancient, it probably predates template functions. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, unused and unneeded. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:For url

Template:For url (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External links should be on the bottom and not as dablinks on the top. Moreover, this one is orphan Magioladitis (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Ick. Definitely a WP:EL violation and if any spammers knew about it... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Kittybrewster ☎ 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as having no valid use. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)