< February 6	February 8 >

February 7

Template:WWE Films

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! 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not suitable or necessary for WP. It's a minor film studio with ties to wrestling (which is over-represented on WP anyway). Films are not part of series or interconnected or even very popular/notable. It's just up because it's related to wrestling. It's not like we take Columbia Pictures and put 3,000 movies on a template or such. --Booshakla 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sets a bad precedent to do templates by production company. Genré maybe. —Moondyne 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Genre would be even worse. How many drama films are there? How many multi-gnre films we have, like comedy and drama or comedy and parody or drama and thriller? Hbdragon88 02:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't at this time oppose a category instead, but Moondyne is right, we shouldn't have templates taking up article space for small production companies. — coelacan talk — 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I don't think that anything on Wikipedia can be "over-represented", there shouldn't be templates for individual movie studios. Eenu (talk) 02:22, 16 February 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 page.

Template:Mortal Kombat characters

The result of the debate was delete. If you take out the anon votes and new users, it's delete by a nose. And it is a essentially a duplicate of an already existing category. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template creep. This template is entirely redundant with Category:Mortal Kombat main characters, since they both list every single playable character in the Mortal Kombat series. This template doesn't have any hope of being made useful, either; either it's a bare list and redundant with the category, or this already-somewhat-large template is made even more bloated by adding metadata (e.g. labels, breaking characters into subgroups, etc.) better suited to List of Mortal Kombat characters anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've made my comment on WikiProject Mortal Kombat discussion page, however, I am again saying: Categories are just for classifications of articles, while this template allows to access quickly to all character articles. Also, this templaet is not large, and is not bloated. It is so simple, that allows you quick access. Master Spider 10:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category is also simple and allows quick access. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "quick access" is also allowed by the category. One click and you have an entire list in alphabetical order. Orderinchaos78 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is easier and quicker. Didn't you read my comment there? Master Spider 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By one single click. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well gee, given your apparent hardon for removing all the characters from ((Mortal Kombat series)) template, it makes sense that it would have become a separate template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, the reasons for removing it from the main template and the reasons for deleting this template are exactly the same. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template links to many articles and is generally a good template.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Master Spider's comments, but with a few more points to consider. Firstly, the part of the template that this design originated from was useful when it came to editing several articles in a single session. This is something that WikiProject Mortal Kombat has done frequently (and will continue to do so), to try and bring said articles up to a particular standard. Secondly, the editor's nomination stems from a seemingly controversial navigational template guideline that he himself designed, which he used to push for the redesign of the Mortal Kombat series template. The debate so far has resulted in the series template being redesigned on a trial basis, and this template designed to fulfil some other navigational concerns. Combining his guideline with this nomination indicates that most navigational templates (including those that he is enforcing his guideline upon) are redundant, as series of articles are commonly placed in category pages. If all of the templates that the editor's guideline has made redundant were deleted, and if category pages were used in the manner that he suggests, this would defeat the purpose of having any navigational templates whatsoever. RobWill80 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories are there for a reason, use them. 82.196.168.20 22:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per anon IP. ^{Khukri -} 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Categories are not at all user friendly or fit for navigation purposes, hence the purpose of the navbox. Going straight from one character article to another character article, particularly in this case with a series of tightly interconnected subjects, is obviously something that a reader would want to do. Intentionally impeding this ability by requiring them to go through an intervening page between each character every single time is both unhelpful and frustrating. I don't believe we should be intentionally antagonizing the readers. On a slightly unrelated note, I find it odd that an anonymous IP would suddenly drop into a TfD with his second only edit ever. MarphyBlack 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are categories not userfriendly or fit for navigation purposes? These are exactly the same lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use categories. —Moondyne 07:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some cases of this kind do require a template, this isn't one of them - there appears to be one-for-one duplication. Orderinchaos78 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This content is well suited to a category, but unnecessarily wastes screenspace as a template and is entirely duplicate content. — coelacan talk — 02:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical, and is rather long, so use categories. >Radiant< 12:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find the template useful, browsing character to character. I'd rather this than that list of MK characters . That other page means I have to either have one tab open to quickly open another characters page, or I have to use the backspace button all the time.--Iamstillhiro1112 14:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, the category is more useful and this template is redundant. The category also helps for better navigation and uses up less space in the article, alphabetizes as well on its own. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More useful? How? Better navigation cannot be argued, because the less that a user needs to do to locate a particular article will always amount to better navigation. I'd also argue that regular contributors to articles on other franchises would disagree with that assessment. Compare some other video game franchises to this one: the Street Fighter and Resident Evil series has categories for their characters here and here, lists here and here, and templates here and here. Are these pages not redundant? Why has the nominator not requested that these be deleted? I don't need to give examples on other subjects that contain this level of redundancy, because they are all over Wikipedia. What makes this one so special? RobWill80 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to respond to the comment about placing the contents in alphabetical order. There is another way that these links could be ordered, but it involves placing them into groups. Unfortunately, I don't think the current standard CVG navbox allows for groups to be designed similar to those in the templates I mentioned earlier. In fact, in trying to address some of the nominators concerns about the series navbox (most of the discussion is here) he wouldn't accept a design that used groups with subtitles to identify its organisational structure. In other words, if we didn't use that particular standard navbox, we would never hear the end of it. RobWill80 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that other things are broke so this should stay broke doesnt make sense. There are points made and your only arguement against those is that "other people and articles do it" which is just an issue for more MfD's, not one to remove my points. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 12:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that the templates are broken. I would find that insulting. Bearing their current condition in mind, it would seem to imply that they are suitable for the requirements of those that would use them the most. Admittedly, our current MK series template is broken, because its organisational structure is almost lost as there are no subtitles. It should be noted very clearly that there is a precedent for having large or comprehensive templates on Wikipedia. To give an example of a large list of names, how about this? Its subject matter is of no importance or interest to me, yet would anyone be arrogant enough to assume that I need all of the links in this template? Of course not. Is this template up for TfD? No. The key point is that anyone who is interested would find the template useful, and I wouldn't begrudge that fact. For comprehensiveness, take a look at this article. Does it look like all those links at the bottom are necessary? No. Are these templates up for TfD? No. But considering that no one can accurately predict which article a user would wish to see next, the links are very handy to have. Similar to the points I made before, examples of this are all over Wikipedia. Can you truly say that they are all broken, if they are so commonplace? Are you willing to insult all those contributing editors by saying that they are all broken? RobWill80 16:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure what effect this may have here, but Category:Mortal Kombat main characters and Category:Mortal Kombat minor characters are both currently being listed at CfD to be deleted and merged into Category:Mortal Kombat characters. Should this merge occur, then this template would no longer be a duplicate of any category. MarphyBlack 11:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Good template, no reason to delete it. Or go back to the old template with everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.28.136 (talk • contribs)
Delete per NuclearUmpf above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It provides quick and easy access to other character pages. - The 4th Snake 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick & easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trosk's Tournaments (talk • contribs)