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 keep. --ais523 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Zelda weapons and items[edit]

Template:Zelda weapons and items (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundent. Almost all items are already listed on Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. Any item that has its own page is already linked to from the items page. -- Jelly Soup 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The whole entire purpose of having navigational templates is to make it easier for readers to navigate through pages without having to go back and look through long lists for the link they want. For example, the ((EMD diesels)) template was created to avoid having to look through List of GM-EMD locomotives and the ((Regions of the world)) template was created to avoid having to look through the Subregion article.--TBCΦtalk? 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ((EMD diesels)) links to several different pages of information on the subject. All the information in this items template is found on one single page. Now, if every item on said page was added to the template and linked to it's section...--Jelly Soup 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That's incorrect; Master Sword, Rupee (The Legend of Zelda series), Triforce, and Gossip Stone all have seperate articles.--TBCΦtalk? 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. No, I was right. I said the page links off to these articles. Why have a template that does the same thing? -- Jelly Soup 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think some of the Zelda templates could be combined, but let WP:ZELDA deal with it. Nothing annoys me more than deletions of WikiProject-maintained categories and templates. --- RockMFR 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator assumed that information was covered all on one page (Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series). That page contains only a summary about these topics with a link to dedicated articles. That makes this is a legitimate navigational template. -- Renesis (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All information IS covered. Anything that isn't links to dedicated articles, as you said. Again, why have a template that links to things that are already linked to from the article? -- Jelly Soup 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. All information is NOT covered... it is covered with the dedicated articles, for which this template serves as a navigational aid. What is wrong with that? That incredibly long list/article is definitely not a suitable navigational aid. -- Renesis (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It just seems redundent to me. I could click on Master Sword on the page to go to it's personal page, or I could scroll all the way to the bottom of the SAME page to click on a template? -- Jelly Soup 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply. You are probably right that it isn't currently useful at the bottom of the full list. But it's definitely useful on the sub-pages. It helps you navigate between the full articles for the most popular items, once you are on one of them. -- Renesis (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. I see your point and I conced. Maybe if links are added to each section for the rest of the items, the template will become more useful. -- Jelly Soup 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template is legitimate; useful, per above. Hello32020 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's iffy if all those articles should exist, but until they're gone the template is warranted †he Bread 00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Useful. ~ Flameviper 18:15, 15 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.

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 Martinp23 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universe Daily (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is redundant with ((blockedsockpuppet|Universe Daily)). It was orphaned and deprecated, but restored by SunStar Net. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was nominated for TFD a month ago and failed. What has changed since then? Neil916 (Talk) 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That group nomination resulted in no consensus because some users felt that a few of the templates (such as ((Bogdablock))) were still useful; this template was not one of those cited as such. —[admin] Pathoschild 00:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Change to delete. My opposition to deletion was related to the fact that it just went through TFD shortly before, but the template is redundant to existing templates that do the job just as well. Neil916 (Talk) 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace usages with cited redundant template per above. -- Renesis (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:DENY. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Martinp23 12:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationOfficers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Titanium Dragon 08:15, 15 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.

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 Martinp23 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationTeamBuilding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 18:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Neil's explanation. Titanium Dragon 08:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Martinp23 12:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Common-target (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I understand the intentions of the creator of this template, but I fear this will do more harm then good. This template has the potential of inviting editors to vandalize (a lá "Don't stuff beans up your nose"), rather than simply call to attention the need to watch for vandalism. Additionally, I doubt many vandals would actually follow the instructions outlined on the template, take a look at the policies that are linked, and then decide not to vandalize. -- tariqabjotu 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Awful template, no good can come of its use. --- RockMFR 17:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At Bill Gates I added a comment "Whatever you're thinking of doing to the article, it isn't half as funny as you think" and vandalism instantly shot up. This template will be similarly counterproductive. Gazpacho 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete allows vandals to point score. Addhoc 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've found it to be highly useful, especially since the wiki admins refused to do much about vandalism to an article I was working on. At least it makes the reader aware that what they are reading may not be what the editors intended to be on the page. Jeffpw 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think this is a good template that people can use to notice vandalism easier. I don't think it will attract vandalism. It should work the same as 'biographies of living persons template'. That way, since something like Homosexuality or Republicans do not count as a biography, they get the same protection. Dark jedi requiem 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very bad idea, obvious vandal magnet. Only in use on one article and two talk pages; it won't be missed. Xtifr _tälk 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:DENY. (Radiant) 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful tool to alert non admin editors of articles that need vigilance against vandalism. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, If you tell a robber to put down his bag of stolen cash will he do so?--Seadog 18:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI never took the template to be a warning against vandals, they will vandalize in any case. But it is a help to non admin editors like me who come across probably 50 articles in a day, not knowing which ones are heavily vandalized. With this template, I'd know that I should scrutinize the recent changes to the article and be more aware of possible vandals. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't need templates for everything. You can have a look at the article history to see whether the article gets vandalized alot. --Conti|✉ 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone looking through Wikipedia look through the page history unless prompted? Speaking for myself, I read through articles to check for sources and accuracy first and foremost. A trip through the page history wouldn't occur unless alerted to edit warring or vandalism. The second of which this template does. I understand consensus seems to be against keeping this template and that's fine with me. But perhaps we should look for a more agreeable alternative at some point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I don't understand why you want or need this information in the first place. Sure, it's slightly useful to know, but permanently putting a template on an article just isn't worth it. --Conti|✉ 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete John254 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't stuff beans up your nose. Titanium Dragon 08:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see the use for this and have recently added it to the waste article talk page.Alex 12:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while acknowledging good intentions. One problem is that the template is static, while vandalism is not. If an article is "currently" a vandalism target, WP:RFP should be used instead of this template. If an article is not "currently" a vandalism target, the presence of this template in the article would be inaccurate or misleading. Accurizer 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, Accurizer. The page Protection request is only as good as the admin who is working on that when you make the request. The article I use this template on was denied page protection while it was vandalised multiple times a day by people pushing their point of view. This was the only solution I could come up with, and it was very helpful. I urge the KEEP of this template. Jeffpw 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:DENY. -Ryanbomber 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't stuff beans up your nose or tack disclaimer templates on perfectly good articles. Keep it on the talk page. Dekimasu 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 consensus Martinp23 13:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EMAP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional company advert and excessively long template that reproduces the company promotional material already present in Category:EMAP [[Category:EMAP]] → friedfish 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How is this template any different to those that exist for other similar media companies e.g. Template:Discovery Communications, Template:News Corporation, Template:Guardian Media Group, Template:GCap Media, Template:NBC Universal, Template:Viacom, Template:CBS, Template:Disney, Template:GCI, Template:Time Warner, etc, etc, etc.? A large amount of the material presented in this template is NOT re-produced elsewhere. I think the presence of such a template provides information as to the vastness of the EMAP empire, it also lets people hop easily between assets. I certainly wouldnt call it promotional, I doubt EMAP who try and project their Big City radio stations as being young and trendy would want those brands associated with assets such as "Steam Railway".Pit-yacker 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thank you for responding, and thank you for pointing out other excessive templates. Notwithstanding; most, if not all, EMAP controlled radio stations are present in [[Category:EMAP]], and should users wish to "hop easily between assets" then it is possible there. Your template is certainly promotional as it lists magazines, which would appear to have been added by members with vested interests in EMAP. Perhaps a more "appropriate and clear" template would be the Template:BBC_Radio and delete [[Category:EMAP]]. → friedfish 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pit-yacker. If EMAP were non-notable, it would be an easy delete, but if I wanted to research the company, the navigation template provides more information and easier navigation to other assets of the company. If the template is too large and ugly for you, it can be reformatted with collapsing subsections (something I don't know how to do myself) without requiring the deletion of the template for aesthetic reasons. Neil916 (Talk) 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The stations and other things listed are so far flung from each other that they do not really aid in navigation. At this point, the navbax is so big that it detracts from navigation rather than aids it. Seriously, what relation does televsion have to radio? If I'm looking at a radio station would I naturally go to a television article? Not really. I wouldn't mind if it was split into radio/television or something like now, but the template as it is now is ginormous, unwiedly, and cumbersome. Hbdragon88 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pit-yacker. A category does not seem to be a suitable replacement for a navigational template in this instance. -- Renesis (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pit-yacker. While it may not be well designed, that just means it should be redesigned and improved. If everything that was not perfect was deleted before it had a chance to mature, then wikipedia would be the a single page saved on Jimbo's desktop. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Martinp23 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationLogo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 07:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems pretty pointless. Who made these to start with? Titanium Dragon 08:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Martinp23 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PhicsamationMembers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Formerly used for a summary of a single image, no longer used. --- RockMFR 07:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a good use of the template space. Hbdragon88 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not needed and a bad idea to begin with. Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless template. Hello32020 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gotta go †he Bread 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why does thhis even exist? Titanium Dragon 08:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]