Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9[edit]

Template:UK formation[edit]

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 No consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK formation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This templates inclusion criteria (if they could even be called that) are vague, obscure and apparently highly subjective. I find it very difficult to come up with any rational connection between the template's title and its content. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The inclusion criteria haven't changed. The title is "Personal and legislative unions of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom". The contents are acts and events that caused (or ended) personal and legislative unions between the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. However, the these personal and legislative unions did not alway cleanly happen in one go. So, for example, when the majority of Ireland left the UK in 192, the parliament of the UK could still (technically speaking) have legislated in the Irish Free State until 1931. Also, personal union between the UK and independent Ireland did not end until 1949. All of Ireland is included because it was once "a country of the UK" and the acts relating to it form a part of the series of articles that this template relates to. --RA (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with the template is that it defined the UK by reference to its historical maximum expansion (1800-1922) but then proceeds to include documents and laws which relate to periods before and after that period. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 was passed by the southern Irish parliament after the Irish Free State has indisputable left the UK. The Statute of Westminster affected Commonwealth realms not the constituent countries of the UK.
The Treaty of Perth resolved a territorial dispute. Are we really saying that a border changes constitutes the creation of a legislative union?
The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 (re-) created Ireland as a Kingdom whereby the Lord of Ireland became the King of Ireland, but how did it create or end a personal union? If anything it just perpetuated one.
The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 renamed the UK. It didn't affect its political make-up.
Why are the European Communities Act 1972 (UK) and the Belfast Agreement listed under the "sovereignty" heading when Poynings' Law isn't? How did the Belfast Agreement create or end a legislative or political union? And the same question applies to everything listed under the "devolution" heading. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These quibbles constitute justification for deletion of a useful template?
You're joking, eh? You're in a Devil's Advocate contest at school?
Let's get back to discussions of greater import. Varlaam (talk) 19:32, 15 October 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:Voyagers![edit]

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. Airplaneman ✈ 19:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Voyagers! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template consists of three entries. Two of them are for characters who are not independently notable. The third is an episode list. I boldly merged/redirected all three and the template is not needed. Even if all three articles are for some reason retained there is no need for a template for this tiny amount of material. A Radish for Boris (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too little info, and too little use for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:01, 10 October 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:Lindsay Taylor[edit]

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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lindsay Taylor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pure fanaticism that takes WP:CRUFT to a whole new level. I can't believe nobody's nominated this before. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:33, 9 October 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 SingStar DLC[edit]

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 WOSlinker (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SingStar DLC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and filled with redlinks. 76.18.85.254 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as it's all redlinks. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:08, 13 October 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 Animaniacs song[edit]

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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Animaniacs song (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template with no foreseen future use. The structure and fields make it a fork of {{Infobox television episode}}.76.18.85.254 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 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:Niger class corvette[edit]

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Airplaneman ✈ 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Niger class corvette (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only author requests deletion - now used on zero pages, with no prospect of ever being used again. Shem (talk) 17:33, 9 October 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:Child Characters[edit]

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. Airplaneman ✈ 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Child Characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used in any articles AussieLegend (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The unused part could have something to do with it being created less than a week ago, so I am guessing there is another reason for deletion, like say "too broad of a topic"? 76.18.85.254 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that it was only created four days ago, it needs to be used in something. There is also an amount of WP:OR in the template, with the inclusion of characters such as Mickey and Minnie Mouse as child characters.[1] However, it does cover too broad a topic, including selected individual characters as well as various TV programs that contain child characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to put it into A article but don't know how to yet. This is my very first Temptle after all. Mickey and Minnie are Child characters they just have been in some non-Child fair videos on websites known for rude and cruel videos like YouTube. So just give me some time ok? Seriously--Gertie1999 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Gertie1999[reply]

How are they child characters when they are portrayed as adults? Regardless of the answer to this, the scope of the template is too broad. Just about every TV program and movie includes child characters and I don't see how the companies are relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be better suited to either a list article or a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used it an an article actually two. So now theres no reason to Delete. People now a days --Gertie1999 (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Gertie1999[reply]
The issue of it being too broad in its scope still remains. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While trying to avoid biting new template authors, there is a question of scope here. In its present form the template is very much tailored to contemporary US subjects: fixing that would result in an enormous template filled with subjects with very little to do with one another. Maybe re-titling the template would help with that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there even a proper criteria for such a template. Besides, some of the entries are animated characters. Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 15:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no clear criteria for inclusion, and the way the template stands now puts too much emphasis on recent and American pop culture. BOVINEBOY2008 15:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete First off, most Child characters are animated and there is no reason to delete--Gertie1999 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Gertie1999[reply]

  • Delete overly broad and creator seems to be extremely confused (Donald Duck as a child character? "most Child characters are animated"??? WHAT?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad a topic; slanted towards American pop culture and includes recent (relatively speaking) characters only; no clear criteria for inclusion; mainly WP:OR; template subjects are only related - loosely, at the most liberal sense - through a tangential feature of them being child characters; template doesn't direct reader to a more comprehensive article explaining anything; etc etc. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad a topic. The fact that this template has a relatively small number of entries so far is not the problem. Rather, the problem is that if this template had a thousand entries, it would be ridiculously long but it would still barely scratch the surface of the topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this template was ever completed (which is itself unlikely since there are way too many characters), it would be way to big. Also note: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Child_Characters is going on at this time. Netalarmtalk 04:37, 14 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_9&oldid=1082333711"