Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29

Template:Buildgames

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox that includes very tenuously linked articles. These games share very little in common with each other save that they use the same stock game engine; otherwise, they were released years apart by different developers and many share little in common regarding gameplay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Weak links indeed. Would this perhaps work better as a category? Dunno if 12 items (got the number from Build engine#Build engine games) would be an effective use of a category, though. EVula 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

change to cat I can see the usefulness of wanting to see how different games have been created using the same engine. This would be fine as a cat, provided there are enough articles written (more than 3 or 4). -Zappernapper 20:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too loosely related. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 5 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Jay-Z Album Appearances

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was being used as a subpage of Jay-Z discography; this is not proper usage of a template. I substituted the template in the article, so it is no longer necessary. musicpvm 02:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a table, not a template. --Shanesan 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Improper use of the template namespace. EVula 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 01:08, 5 November 2006 (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 page.

3di-series templates with two links

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consc. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3di 24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:3di 25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:3di 72 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:3di 82 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:3di 83 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:3di 84 (west) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:3di 89 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates exist to provide links between main routes of the Interstate Highway system with their spur routes. Some of these templates link to several routes, e.g. {{3di 5}} or {{3di 80}}. These above contain only one link, along with one in their title. Navboxes containing only two links are a Bad Thing™. It is specifically these and only these that are for consideration here, not the entire set of templates. 81.104.170.167 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are needed per WP:IH, there is no policy against such templates existing, these are needed fpr consistency, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this project says that they are needed for consistency, so they cannot be deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a policy against IP noms? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether there's a policy against elitist members commenting on them ;-) 81.104.170.167 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete. At the very worst, subst: the templates, but do not perform a flat out delete. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not have to blindly follow WikiProject guidelines if the result is something ridiculous like a template for a single link. Go ahead and subst but the templates themselves are unnecessary. --Polaron | Talk 02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is so that at a glance someone can find the link in the same place as the other articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, what does this template achieve in that respect that a section heading doesn't? 81.104.170.167 04:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The template provides a much more graphical and easier way to look at the spurs. The list does not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - They're not lists. Lists by definition have more than one item in them. 81.104.170.167 06:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If they have bullets or numbers tehy are lists. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Not if they consist of only one item. Again, what is wrong with replacing those cases where there is only one spur with a pair of reciprocal links? You can always recreate the template when they're actually needed (i.e. when another spur appears at a later date). 81.104.170.167 07:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rschen7754 and TwinsMetsFan. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not exactly sure what it is I'm looking at. Can someone explain? --Shanesan 07:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking at one-line entries in navboxes. As an example, see Interstate 184 to see what the actual box looks like (it involves use of meta-templates). You should find yourself looking at a navbox with one and only one entry in it. It is only the templates behind the navboxes, and only those with only one entry. Each is used in only two places. This is clearly not what the Template namespace is for, and in those cases of only one entry, it is counter-intuitive on the articles on the spurs (where you are presented with a link to the page you are on, rather than a link to the related route, which is hidden in the title). Articles for Interstates not having spurs manage just fine without the navbox, and I can see their usefulness on groups of articles where there are many spurs, but only one? Pair of reciprocal links in the text will do just as nicely, and is no less usable (actually more usable on the spur article). 81.104.170.167 07:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is silly. We don't need transclusions to link two pages. That's what wikilinks are for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without expressing an opinion on the instant question, let me just say that I am nervous at the suggestion that "they cannot be deleted" because "this project says that they are needed for consistency". It's dangerous when WikiProjects start to think they have some sort of authority over other Wikipedians... User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a member of the roads project, I do not believe that these templates provide anything more than a link. --NE2 18:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:TMF and User:Rschen7754. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency with other 3di pages. Powers ^T 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now for the purposes of consistency, although I would much prefer a compromise solution like those being discussed currently at WT:IH. -- NORTH ^talk 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. --Holderca1 23:01, 6 November 2006 (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 page.