December 24

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (West)

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (West) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

too large and can be done with category. Makes more sense to do at state level.— PorchME (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (East)

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (East) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

too large and can be done with category. Makes more sense to do at state level.— PorchME (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of the Chinese

Template:History of the Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplication of Template:History of China. Creator appears to have created it simply for the purpose of pushing the use of AD/BC year labels rather than CE/BCE, thus making it really just a POV fork. (For what it's worth, I use AD/BC usually when writing articles; the use of CE/BCE, however, is not a good reason to simply create a POV fork of the template without discussion.) Delete. — Nlu (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Nlu. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fork. Even if there is consensus for to use both labels, one template can handle it. –Pomte 23:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Classic Rock Radio Stations in Delaware

Template:Classic Rock Radio Stations in Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not very useful, especially in a state as small as Delaware. Categorization by format is normally done on a nationwide basis, not at the state level. See Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#format_specific_navboxes. Rtphokie (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokeanime

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

Pokecruft template for copy+pasting cookie-cutter text. Delete per precedent of Pokestart — TheBilly (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescue

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

Template was intended for mainpage usage and per last TfD has been targeted for banishment from its intended use. Thus the project using it has lost momentum for rescuing (improving articles) and the entire project is stalling. Either the template (and likely the Rescue project itself) should be dismissed as not improving Wikipedia or the template should be freely used on mainpage AfDs as intended so the related project(s) can go about their work.. — Benjiboi 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. TfD notice has been placed on talk pages of all editors and commentors of template's article and talk page as well as the talk page of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, the project linked to this template.
• Comment. Previous TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue. The result of the debate was Keep, but with caveats on usage, wording, and an eye to how it's used in practice.

• Keep both the template and the project, but yes, it should be on the main page and not the talk page. We are here to improve an encyclopedia and build and revise articles. We are not here to destroy people's factually verifiable work and exclude elements of mankind's collective knowledge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Comment I am not part of the project nor do I care what happens to this template, however, I disagree with the nominator's rationale. Why can't this continue to be used on talk pages? Things change over time. Many templates were originally created for use on the article page itself and are now use exclusively on talk pages. Look at all the "article issue" temps. that were moved. This is not a reason to delete at all. As for the status of the project itself—I can not comment. That's why I'm not voting "keep", I don't know if this template is even wanted anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From the prior TfD discussion a partial quote from Kelly Martin- Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. In short banishing the template from the article page to either talk or AfD page mitigates its usefulness. Only a fraction of users visit either the talk or AfD page and this templates intended use is for an AfD so is limited to less than a week's time which seems a minor inconvenience to those who deem it inconvenient at all. A good example of this is Fingerskate where there have been no usage of the talk page despite several years of the article's existence.(talk page has been restored but is still underutilized.) Putting the template there would seem to have no effect on alerting general users thus its possibility for communicating is rendered impotent. Every effort to ensure the template was reworded has been made yet it's opponents are still wanting to see it expunged from main page. Let's see if the template can be left as intended or if it, in fact, should be deleted as its detractors think is appropriate. Benjiboi 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete should never have been in existence on article pages, and is consistently used improperly on article talk pages. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you please illustrate how the template has been "consistently used improperly on article talk pages"? Benjiboi 22:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It encourages vote stacking and it simply is a way for people to say "look at this AFD and vote keep" which is a way of canvassing in my view. Le Grand basically abuses the template by placing it on almost every article in AFD that he posts in. It's no secret he is anti-deletion (with the exception of a tiny amount of articles). This nonsense about "destroying people's work" needs to stop. Wikipedia simply isn't the guide to everything. There is policies and guidelines in place for good reason, but he chooses to ignore them and not even read many of them. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you please expand on how the template encourages vote-stacking and/or canvassing? And if so, is there a better way of wording so those concerns are addressed? Also, Le Grand's use of the template and behaviors should probably be addressed on a user level unless you're suggesting that they're part of the Rescue project-wide abuse or widespread template abuse. Benjiboi 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Encouraging work to be done to improve articles that might otherwise be deleted is a praiseworthy endeavor. This template is a good and easy way to do so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for use in mainspace as opposed to talk-space, per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. To an extent, I agree with the nom that the system is relatively useless when the template is used in talk-space. Few people notice the tags except those who browse the category, and the category is no longer active enough to attract many browsers, thanks to the previous TfD -- now we have positive feedback going on. Hence the reason I favored keeping the template in mainspace last time. I don't think there was any consensus to restrict the template to talk-space in the previous TfD, and the template talk page, where the issue was discussed in more depth, seemed to be heading in the direction of keeping it to the mainspace. Perhaps the talk-space system was worth a try, but it doesn't seem to be working, and the previous TfD clearly favored keeping the old system over getting rid of it entirely (for reasons I won't repeat). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:One Fine Day!

Template:One Fine Day! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template should be deleted because it is no longer in use in any articles. Its parent article was deleted as a result of the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Fine Day! Obviously the creator had a plan for a larger set of articles, but there is no need for the template now. — Darkspots (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete housecleaning. –Pomte 00:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1990 Chicago Cubs season game log

Template:1990 Chicago Cubs season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across this moster of a template on Wikipedia:Templates with red links, which is apt because it contains a hundred and eighty-four of them. The template purports to link to individual articles for each game of the 1990 Chicago Cubs season. These red links will never turn blue, as individual baseball games are generally not notable enough to rate individual articles. Turn it into an article (if anything) and delete. bd2412 T 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Simpsons Christmas Episodes

Template:The Simpsons Christmas Episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is a very loose grouping of episodes. There have been several others that have partially been centered around Christmas but didn't air in December. (ie. Dude, Where's My Ranch?, Mr. Plow and Homer vs. Dignity . In fact, these episodes were even included on a Christmas themed DVD release some years back, but none of them first aired in December) and some that are included here aren't actually Christmas episodes, they just aired in December. (ie. Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind). There's really no need for the template, because the Christmas episodes are not like the Treehouse of Horror episodes, where they are all definitely Halloween episodes and there is use for easy navgiation between the epiusodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom...even if we deleted the non-Christmas ones, people would add ones back in with brief Christmas theme in them Ctjf83 ^talk 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with everything said above. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]