Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25

Template:Filmfare South Best Actor Award

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken and unused; clearly unnecessary – Gurch 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, appears to have been an unsuccessful adaptation of {{Succession box}} SkierRMH 22:46, 26 October 2007 (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:User unblocked

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template designed to inform an Admin that one of their blocks has been overturned by another Admin. I'd think that this is better accomplished with a personal message (given WP:TEMPLAR).. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. I also don't think this is currently in use anywhere (see what links there). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. A personal message is better for these situations. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that personal messages are best but we have impersanal welcome templates, don't we?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 10:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do. (It saves time, and makes it easy to deliver a succinct greeting). However, using templates on established users is widely considered rude. When addressing something as potentially inflammatory as block/unblocks, I think templates are quite possibly the last thing we need to use. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Rtphokie 15:24, 28 October 2007 (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:Notable Economists

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. matt br 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selection criteria is arbitrary - if notable refers to WP:N, then all notable articles in List of economists should be included. However this would render the template impossibly large and useless. Thus, this template either violates WP:NPOV or is too large to be of any use. Existing subtemplates (see Category:Economics navigational boxes. See Templates_for_deletion#Template:Mercantilism for previous discussion. Skomorokh ^incite 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC). Skomorokh ^incite 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the suggestion that this template be deleted is retaliatory for my suggesting that other templates should be deleted. Clearly, some economists are more notable than others from whatever school of thought; they don't all need to be included in a template, and that doesn't mean the criteria are arbitrary, which makes this an all or nothing argument again. Also the template's different schools of thought broadens, rather than restricts, the reader's viewpoint.

We can change the name of the template from "Notable" to "A sampling of" or "Arbitrary list of" economists or something else. Hires an editor 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's arbitrary about it is that a different person, charged with the task of deciding who was notable enough to be included in a "Notable economists" template, could very easily come up with a very different list than yours. Templates should only be created for specific and clearly-defined things — a template for winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, for example, would probably be valid. But a template whose purpose is essentially "economists that Hires an editor has personally decided are the important ones for you to know about" doesn't belong here. Either delete, or split into more specific templates based on much less POV inclusion criteria. Bearcat 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no criteria of who can and can't be included on this oversize nav template. Renaming the template wouldn't fix that problem. The best solution would be to replace it with categories so that all article on economists can be included. --Farix (Talk) 21:17, 29 October 2007 (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:WXPN

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. matt br 07:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 items dont really warrant a navigational box — Rtphokie 01:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 01:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "see also" would work just as well for 2 items. SkierRMH 22:40, 26 October 2007 (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.