Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

July 29[edit]

Template:Provinces of Zambia Image Map[edit]

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 keep. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Provinces of Zambia Image Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template DexDor (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of like a navbox, but an image. If a use is not found, userfy, move to project space or delete Keep now that a use has been found. —PC -XT + 01:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC) 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I've now put it into an article. It's common for a one-use clickable map's code to be moved into a template, basically to simplify editing for the page where it's used; for example, {{List of Registered Historic Places in Ohio topnav}} is just a small percentage of the displayed version of List of RHPs in OH, but its code is actually longer than the list's code. It could very easily be edited by accident, and the detailed nature of the code means that you won't easily notice that you made a little change by accident. As a result, it's good to ensure that image maps be edited only by people who intend to edit them. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nyttend. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 20:14, 3 August 2014 (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 section.

Template:Star Wars Junior Jedi Knights[edit]

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 Delete; deleted as G8 by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star Wars Junior Jedi Knights (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox in which all linked articles have been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junior Jedi Knights Series. Deor (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, probably speedy per G8? Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (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 section.

Template:Film-fiction[edit]

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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film-fiction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used in only The Three Smiles, so I removed it from the page. Now it's no longer useful. Also, the template itself is redundant, as "fact" and "fiction" are easily distinguished in fictional films by very good editing. George Ho (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day, I disambiguated the "X type of article that needs to differentiate between fact and fiction" - I notice that when you look into Category:Film articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction, there are more than a couple articles. It looks like they use (for example) {{In-universe|subject = film|category = film|date = October 2009}} - which seems like a reasonable solution. Disavian (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the template is not about classifying a film as "fiction" or "non-fiction", both rather signalling that the article needs to be edited to clarify which elements of a plot are factual or fictional; at least one "bot" account seem to provide the template as to tag for this purpose. There may be other templates that also perform this function which could be consolidated, but the criteria used to propose this one's deletion seems to misunderstand its purpose. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant with {{in-universe}} -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These templates seem different to me. I don't think their usage overlaps very much. —PC -XT + 00:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC) It is close enough to {{In-universe|subject = film|category = film|date = October 2009}}, however, that we could possibly try turning it into a wrapper for now. —PC -XT + 01:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as unused. if someone want's to merge it with {{in-universe}}, go ahead. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2014 (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 section.