Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 28

: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 {{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y|Happy‑melon 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)}}}} Delete. Happy‑melon 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|Tripwires}}

Template only links to non-existant articles, band's notability is small (articles of songs etc have recently been deleted). No reason for template's existence Cycle~ (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. If there are no articles existing, then why would we need the template? What I think is that unless an article related to this template exists, the template shouldn't be active. Versus22 _talk 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Clarify: Two of the songs linked to by this template originally had articles, but have been deleted via AfD and PROD due to notability. This navigational template now serves no navigational purpose. Cycle~ (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.

: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 {{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y|Happy‑melon 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)}}}} Delete. Happy‑melon 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unused and redundant to {{tl|convert}}. JIMp _talk·cont 12:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|Unit floz(UK)}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit floz(US)}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit cubic kilometre}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit sq mi}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit square mile}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit square kilometre}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit oz(troy)}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit lbf}}

:{{tfdlinks|Unit smoot}}

::Now here's a useless template. It converts to metres from the joke unit, the Smoot. No, not redundant to {{tl|convert}} for a change, no, just plain useless. (There was once mention of adding the Smoot to {{tlf|convert}} not taken seriously ... however, if there really is a need, it would be easy enough.) JIMp _talk·cont 10:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|Unit ton}}

::Another unused template redundant to {{tl|convert}}, this template cannot handle 1 ton (displays "1 tons") and does not specify that the ton in question is the 2000 lb version (as specified by WP:MOSNUM). JIMp _talk·cont 10:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|sz}}

::This template is unused. It is redundant to {{tl|convert}}. It does not conform to WP:MOSNUM. When you look at the template in action in edit mode, it is not clear that "sz" is short for "size", that "size" means length by width nor that the input units are centimetres and the conversion to inches. JIMp _talk·cont 09:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete All: Same reason as given when {{tl|Unit cu m}}, {{tl|Unit acre}} and {{tl|Unit cu ft}} were deleted in November (see here); i.e. having all conversions be carried out thought a single template will standardise how different aspects of the conversion are achieved and make it easer to ensure changes in implementation needed to keep up with the ever changing MOS are done in a consistent way. -- Patleahy (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete All. Redundant to {{tld|convert}}. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.

: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 {{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y|Happy‑melon 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)}}}} No consensus. As noted, TfD is not really the proper forum for a discussion like this. Take it to RfC or somewhere similar. Happy‑melon 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|Movie title external links}}

Unnecessary and inappropriate template that apparently is attempting to take over individual templates, but has no consensus by any project, uses incorrect formats, and would only serve to encourage indiscriminate links instead of selective one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

:This template was made to make life a lot easier, especially with IMDb, Allmovie, and TV.com being removed from the infoboxes. Instead of having a lot of little tiny external link templates, just have one big one for the most used external links in film and television articles. I am not sure what you mean by incorrect formats, the links are formatted the same as the individual templates. Please, this is easy to use, and a lot easier to maintain and remember the name of. I can't keep track of all of the single use templates. It also takes less space in the edit screen and is tidier than a list of single use templates. I just merged the little ones together. LA (T) @ 05:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

:Also, if kept, please restore it to the articles from which it was removed. LA (T) @ 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

::(EC) No, they are not, as the "little" ones are used with bullets, not by themselves. It doesn't make life easier for anyone except perhaps you, as it combines a bunch of stuff that never had consensus for being "standard" links (being most used isn't the same thing and you already included several that have no place in any decent movie/film article) and it encourages people to put in all links instead of being selective. It also is no easier to use nor maintain nor remember than any other template and seems to be purely because you yourself can't remember the names of two templates (which is ALL that discussion is covering). Its excessively long named, really, while the few little templates all have easy to remember, short names, and are also very easy to find in the relevant MoS for Films/Television, as appropriate. You also did not do any discussion nor sought any consensus for making such a dramatic change across so many articles, but presumed you knew what was better without, I presume, wondering why it was never done before (because it isn't the best way to deal with them). Both projects have clear Manuals of Styles that address ELs which this template goes against, which will do nothing but lead to confusion for newer editors. Even if kept, unless there is actual consensus in both the film and television projects, you really have no business making such massive changes without consensus nor discussion. In either case, it will not be restored to those articles as the discussion you pointed to has NOT even concluded yet, so there is still not a clear consensus to remove the links from the infobox.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The basic idea is sound – in fact I had a go at creating something similar myself a while back, but never followed through with it. I do, however, share the nom's concern that this may lead to people adding indiscriminate links that serve no real purpose to individual articles. I'm not so sure about throwing in TV links with film links; I think that for this template to work then it needs to be more selective and less inclusive. LA does have a point regarding the individual templates, though. In my own experience I have found them to be inconsistant in their naming and coding, and in general they are poorly documented. I think the whole thing merits discussion, but I'm not sure that TfD is the ideal venue. PC78 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Collectonian that there should have been some discussion prior to creating this template and adding it to articles, and that it potentially adds links to articles where they don't belong. (I myself never add Box Office Mojo, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or TCM Movie Database as external links if I have used them as references within the article and they appear as references at the end of it, as I feel there's no need to duplicate this information.) Since the editor has the option of filling in the blanks only as needed, unnecessary links can be eliminated, although I agree some of the options are irrelevant. However, I experimented with this template to see how it would look if utilized, and I don't like the way the long string of links trails along. (Also, although I filled in the title, for some reason it didn't append to the external link prior to the list of sites, as I suspect it should.) If I was required to make a choice, I would vote to delete. LiteraryMaven (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete because while I understand the concept, I am not convinced that it is necessary to centralize external links in this template. The template still requires retrieving the correct part of the URL, which I think would be the hardest part, so the template is not an improvement in that direction. In addition, I think that keeping external link templates decentralized makes it easier to have deletion discussions about whether or not to template a certain external link. I really wish that discussion could have taken place before creating this template... ideas could go back and forth to fine-tune a template that would be used across multiple articles... shorter template name, limited ELs (like what MOS:FILM endorses), and a plan as to whether or not we should actively swap out templates. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Proposal instead of this TfD, can it please undergo an RfC inviting the participants of WikiProject Films and WikiProject Television to discuss this template at length? LA (T) @ 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:I see no reason for this. The template is not appropriate and both projects were notified of this discussion. This is, in essence, its RfC. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.