Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

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 debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This one could never approach completeness (read:NPOV): There's thousands of peple who wrote Essays (Tolstoy is not among them, btw imho), and with every new McSweeney's there's a dozen more. Imagine a Template:Novelists... — Janneman (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - This should be a category (maybe it already is), not a template, for reasons as per nom: there's just too many noted people who wrote published essays. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete since a category would work better.
Delete per nom. This will never be a complete list, nor will it ever be 100% NPOV. A category serves a better function. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as this seems rather POV, cherry picking these particular essayists. Be sure to(if it already hasn`t been done) merge the essayists listed to Cat:Essayists. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, agreeing with nominator and all votes above. Could never be comprehensive... for instance, it doesn't even include Francis Bacon, who should have been first on the list, for my money. --Lockley (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2008 (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 debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Same as below. --- RockMFR 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should delete this one as the below one was also deleted, which was essentially the same. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:10, 15 August 2008 (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 debate was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#T3. I replaced all the usages. Didn't see a need to have a huge list of IPs on every individual IP's talk page. Also, since the Avril vandal seems to original from these IPs, I think we've got an ACB rangeblock in place which kinda precludes the encouragement to softblock. Drop by my talk if there was a compelling reason to keep it around that I didn't think of. –xeno (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can be easily replaced by {{SharedIPEDU|London Grid for Learning}} and also no longer represents current practice. (Seems we rarely allow account creation as that would just slow the persistent vandals down) –xeno (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2008 (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 debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a recently created template fork of {{Infobox Musical artist}}, and was apparently created because the user could not get consensus for his proposed change (addition of "Musical styles" field) to the infobox. — Prolog (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Templates only purpose was to add a "musical style" field to the original template format. The consensus from the discussion on the merits of this option was that the field was not to be included in the template. However, this second "bad faith" template was created and put into use before the discussion and consensus on the original proposal had even started. Libs (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Template fork. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. – IbLeo (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - per nom. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:13, 15 August 2008 (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 debate was Withdrawn. I still don't see the purpose of this template, though. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unused talk-page template. Only transclusions are on article talk pages in the form of {{sofixit}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, the usage guideline in its documentation asks that it be substituted. Did you miss that? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This template is certainly very widely used. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OMGWTF!? The wikipedia culture is sometimes known as the {{sofixit}} culture. We are talking part of the hard kernel of lore that holds wikipedia together here! The template is more often {{tl}}-linked than directly linked though. What amazes me is that TenPoindHammer has been with us for over 2 years and apparently never heard of the template and/or still thinks it could be deleted. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Someone is doing something VERY wrong somewhere, but possibly it's not TenPoundHammer?
Keep. Obviously meant for substituting, so number of transclusions is meaningless. Useful template. PC78 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Important part of Wikipedia history/culture. Does no harm. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep — should be subst'ed and bots subst it when it isn't. –xeno (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong (speedy) Keep: I can't believe this is up for deletion - but I'm even more surprised by the identity of the nominator! This is a core Wikipedia template...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 20:43, 14 August 2008 (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 debate was Withdrawn. I still don't see the purpose of this template, though. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unused talk-page template. Only transclusions are in the form of {{solookitup}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that, like {{sofixit}}, this is meant to be substituted to provide a rapid and friendly response to new users who haven't quite gotten WP:BOLD yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This template is certainly very widely used. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: {{sofixit}} and {{solookitup}} are idealy subst'ed... -- Cat ^chi? 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously meant for substituting, so number of transclusions is meaningless. PC78 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (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 debate was No consensus. Happy‑melon 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This template survived a ~~TDF~~ (oh, I'm sorry, it's TFD. Thanks, TenPoundHammer!) in 2005, but for the wrong reason. It is completely useless, since JSTOR uses Digital object identifier. So there's no need to point at a JSTOR page via URL. — Bender235 (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It survived a Templates Dor Feletion? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, very funny. Got something else to say about this? ––Bender235 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, considering I can't decipher the rest of the terms you threw at me. Digital object identifier? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about reading the Wikipedia article Digital object identifier? ––Bender235 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on this, as I have documented it.

As I understand, this is used to point to a journal, not an article; a good example of this is at Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society#External links.

I don’t use this template, though I have used {{JSTOR stable URL}}, which links to articles. This latter (JSTOR stable URL) is presumably not needed, since, as you say, JSTOR uses DOIs, and thus one should instead use {{cite doi}}.

So I propose:

Document at {{JSTOR}} that people use {{cite doi}} for articles
Transition the few uses of {{JSTOR stable URL}} to {{cite doi}}
TFD {{JSTOR stable URL}}

Regarding this template, I have no feelings – I don’t use it, but people who want to reference JSTOR journals may find it useful.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no great feelings about the template, but I fail to see why DOIs are preferable to stable URLs. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, JSTOR doesn’t have DOIs for many articles, so this is a moot point: for many articles, one must use an URL anyway, be it literally or via a template.

Nils (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR has DOIs for every article. They use Dublin Core metadata (check the source code on a random JSTOR article).

DOIs are always preferable to URLs because they are permanent. ––Bender235 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR provides what it terms "stable urls," and I have no reason to believe that DOIs are any more permanent. Am I wrong? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bender,

Looking into it further, it seems that:

JSTOR does have DOIs for every article (all that I tested)
…but these don’t always work!

For instance, on Central series, there is a link to:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9947%28200110%29353%3A10%3C4219%3AOTRBUC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

This has DOI: 10.2307/2693793, but the link:

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2693793

…does not work! Further, the DOI is not displayed on this article’s pages.

So DOIs are not a substitute for JSTOR stable URLs.

I’ve elaborated this at {{JSTOR stable URL}}.

Nils (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi jbmurray,

The distinction people draw between DOIs and stable URLs (at Digital object identifier#Comparison with other standards) is:

DOIs represent the object (the article as an abstract entity)
…while URLs represent a location of the object (where to download a PDF)

Nils (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (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 debate was merge to {{American films}}. Happy‑melon 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns were raised over at WP:FILM that these were an overproliferation of navboxes (see discussion here). These templates are typically placed at the foot of film articles; however, there is no reason for a film released in one year to link to lists for every year in that decade. It would be more appropriate to have a single "See also" link to the desired list instead. — PC78 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Each article only needs a see also to the correct year in film. Why would a film in 1999 need a link to all films in 1991? Yobmod (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Whatever is decided, a bot should be applied to administer a standard to all 12,000 American film articles. As long as everything is consistent and we have the link there from each film article to the years in American film is what I am concerned with. Eventually I want to see a detailed articles for each year in american film rather than just a list. I want them turned into encyclopedia articles with the A-Z of movies at the bottom. This would make them even more relevant connected from film articles for the history. In my view, this new template below would consolidate the industry and history of American film and put each film in its place in history and allow precise navigation across the content we have. It would also be a move towards consistancy with the British, French, Italian etc templates we already have connecting the years in film for that country. Also given that is it set on closed by default there shouldn't be too many concerns with clutter.

My proposed altertative is below

v • d • e American films by year

Actors · Directors · Animation · Cinematographers · Composers · Editors · Films A–Z · Producers · Screenwriters

1890s · 1900 · 1901 · 1902 · 1903 · 1904 · 1905 · 1906 · 1907 · 1908 · 1909 · 1910 · 1911 · 1912 · 1913 · 1914 · 1915 · 1916 · 1917 · 1918 · 1919 · 1920 · 1921 · 1922 · 1923 · 1924 · 1925 · 1926 · 1927 · 1928 · 1929 · 1930 · 1931 · 1932 · 1933 · 1934 · 1935 · 1936 · 1937 · 1938 · 1939 · 1940 · 1941 · 1942 · 1943 · 1944 · 1945 · 1946 · 1947 · 1948 · 1949 · 1950 · 1951 · 1952 · 1953 · 1954 · 1955 · 1956 · 1957 · 1958 · 1959 · 1960 · 1961 · 1962 · 1963 · 1964 · 1965 · 1966 · 1967 · 1968 · 1969 · 1970 · 1971 · 1972 · 1973 · 1974 · 1975 · 1976 · 1977 · 1978 · 1979 · 1980 · 1981 · 1982 · 1983 · 1984 · 1985 · 1986 · 1987 · 1988 · 1989 · 1990 · 1991 · 1992 · 1993 · 1994 · 1995 · 1996 · 1997 · 1998 · 1999 · 2000 · 2001 · 2002 · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008

♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If we are to merge the existing templates into the new one above (which seems like a fairly amicable solution at this point), then no bot work is required. Just a simple case of redirecting the old to the new, although you could have a bot clean up the template links, I suppose. PC78 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. What I mean though is by no means are the templates above used in all the American film articles we have at present. I;d imagine that in total they are only used in less than 1/4 of the articles we have on American film. So any new standard we agree on should not only be placed in the existing articles they ar eused in, but also put it all the other remaining articles for consistency. Once we make a decision, a bot could be used to administer them at the foot of all the articles in the category and to remove the decade templates as suggested. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It's a useful navigation aid. Decades have specific styles and links among films just as individual years. Templates are fairly unobtrusive additions to any article. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly what I thought ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, decades are rather arbitrary groupings of years. A film released in 1999 will obviously be closer to a film released in 2000 than a film released in 1990. PC78 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Grouping films by decade is faily standard - both in general conversation and literature. Many films are described as, for example, "a 70's film" or "an 80's film." This comes up in conversation, film reviews, books and even book titles. It would be intuitative for Wikipedia to follow this grouping trend.

As an aside, Lady Aleena's alternative template seems reasonable. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep all These are nice and neat and serve as a handy navigation tool. I really don't see the point in removing them all to replace them with a "See also" section that's doing the same thing! If space is an issue, the see also section would take up more space than a collapsed template. If these are deleted, then what happens to country specific templates like {{CinemaofGermany}}, for example? Lugnuts (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wasn't there a concensus not to use {{CinemaoftheUS}} (or whatever it's called) in film articles? Why should the fate of this group of tempates affect the usage of everything else? It's not a question of space: if a simple wikilink will do, we don't need a template. PC78 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep create guidelines for usage, and restrict to appropriate articles. --emerson7 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Replace with a new merged template Template:American films by decade, then Delete the above. LA @ 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: for the 8000th time. Please do not use "American" use "United States" instead! American may very well mean Mexican or Argentinian! -- Cat ^chi? 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

With the logic of my kitty, all of our categories for the united states on wikipedia are redundant. Are you suggesting we change them all to Category:United States actors, Category:United States writers, Category:United States tennis players etc?? "American" generally refers to people or subjects of the United States in the way that "British" refers to the people and subjects of the United Kingdom. If we mean people from mexico, guatemala or Argentina we most often refer to them as "Latin American" or "South/Central American or just Mexican or Argentine. There is no problem with terming United States subjects "American". ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with White Cat that American should be switched out for United States whichever way this goes. LA (T) @ 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - These navboxes are extremely useful for creating context for those doing research into film history, and are convenient as well for those simply curious to find out what else happened at the same time as the film they're currently reading about, or in the years before or after (information which is important when tracking trends and fads). The space question is a non-issue, the navbox takes up negligible real estate, as long as it's properly placed at the bottom of the article. Essentially, there's really no good reason for deleting these, which represent many many hours of work by a multitude of editors. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ed, what do you think of the merged template. 1 template to do the work of 11? LA (T) @ 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what exactly what problem it solves. The current templates already exist, and would have to be replaced with your new template, so that's additional work to be done. Having one template doesn't do anything about the supposed real estate problem. I guess it's biggest strength would be that people might rememember one template marginally more easily than a suite of them, and remember to add it to new articles, but since the suite names are in a pattern, I'm not sure that different is terrible significant.
Of course, if the option was to have a single combined template or nothing, I'd certainly prefer the combo platter, but my first choice would be to keep the templates we already have. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:EFFORT isn't the best of arguments, and as I said above, it isn't a question of space, it's more a question of redundancy. Why have a template when a simple link will do? Why have eleven templates when one will do? I would at least be happier to throw all of these links into a single nav template. PC78 (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Every navbox is redundant by that definition, since they are all collection of Wikilinks, which could be selected out and used as "See also" entries. It's the nature of navboxes to bundle those links relevant to a particular subject together and provide ease of navigation to these related links. Nothing about these particular template is any different, and I haven't seen any real valid argument here as to why they should be deleted. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's purely a matter of perspective. I'm still not buying the argument that a film released last week requires a link to List of American films of 2000. Only one link in each of these template is truly relevant to the article in which it is placed. PC78 (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you think of it in relation to older films instead of relatively current ones? With recent films we're all familair with the cinematic cultural context the film is part of, since we're soaking in it all the time, but when dealing with older films, the degree of knowledge about what films came about around the same time, or what was popular and what was unusual, is going to vary greatly from person to person, and it seems plausible that a fair number of people will be interested in knowing those things, and want to look around to find out. User sees a film on TCM made in the 30's, checks it out on Wikipedia, learns something about the film but is curious about how it compares to other films put out at the time, goes to the navbox and explores a little. I agree that's not a monstrously big-time thing, but it's an enhancement that's both useful and user-friendly with little or no downside, so why delete? (In fact, I'm really not sure I understand what the motivation is to delete them in the first place.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm fairly certain I've mentioned above, it's the redundancy and rather arbitrary nature of these templates that is the problem. Consider Those Awful Hats, a sufficiently old film: besides the fact there are two links to 1909 in film as well as Cat:1909 films (which should provide sufficient context by themselves), the reader is bombarded with links to lists for every film released in America that decade. Why a link to List of American films of 1900? Why not a link to List of American films of 1910? PC78 (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have fundamentally different perceptions about what is rendundant, what is and isn't useful to the user, and so on, which it's not going to be useful to either of us to thrash out here, but if the compromise of a single template (as suggested by Lady Aleena and implemented by Blofeld) is where we're heading, I can live with that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement, so I guess I can live with it too. PC78 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge into the unified template. Perhaps a {{template:navbox subgroups}} could be used to do the decade grouping the film enthusuists seem to favor. Either way, I feel that a single unified template is a far more useful navigational aid than by decade (after all, many of the best films transcend decades). bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
KEEP Why can't editors spend more time being creative than trying to change things that really don't need to be changed??? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Isn't this exactly why categories were created? Garion96 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. See WP:Categories, lists, and series boxes Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, read it and see it hasn't changed much since the last time I read it. This is exactly why categories were created instead of this template on each and every American film article. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when do categories connect specific american films by year together? Neither category American films or for example Category:1987 films categorize a specific bunch of articles from the United States in a given year. Anyway even if we had a category e.g Category:American films of 1987, such a category would only lists the articles whereas the film list pages are intended to give encyclopedic information with info on directors.casts, release and studio etc (once completed) which categories can't. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If categories are created you can add a link on the category page Category:American films of 1987 to List of American films of 1987. Or just use one link on the film article Platoon (film) to the list List of American films of 1986. No need for the (new) huge template on every film article. Garion96 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid alternative certainly The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

KEEP: I agree w/ user AdamBMorgan Luigibob (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep or use unified template. I prefer the unified template, but either is fine. Neither one takes up much space, and is appropriate to all film articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Unify. The individual templates are clearly unnecessary.
Delete. A film in 1979 does not have a distinctly different feel than one in 1980. A "see also" link would serve the same purpose. Or perhaps wikilink the page in the production year in the template. —Over My Head 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but remove templates from film articles using them. They actually belong in the aforementioned series of American film lists. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That option would work for me as well. If that would be the case I will change my vote to keep. I object the most to this template being on every article about a film on wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really understand this suggestion. The templates function on film articles is to send you to the year lists, how does having the templates on the year list articles help? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I forgot that the lists articles already have Template:Americanfilmlist which serves that function. I still prefer delete than, I really find it a pointless template to have on every film article. Garion96 (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2008 (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 debate was redirect. Happy‑melon 17:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't too sure if I could tag this for speedy under T3, but this template is useless. Template:English football seasons has effectively replaced this template in every single English-football related article. Also, according to What links here, the this template is only used in an archive of User:Kingjeff. This template is nowhere u

Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 14 -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 14

Related Sponsors

Contents

August 14

Template:Essayists

Template:IP Foothill De Anza

Template:IP LGFL

Template:Infobox Musical artist2

Template:Sofixit

Template:Solookitup

Template:JSTOR

American films by decade

Template:Seasons in English football