Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 7

1126:. These templates do not add any value to their respective articles, and do nothing but crowd articles that may already have 1-3 templates on them. No other magazines have a template covering every last title every included, and I do not think WSJ needs on either. It sets a bad precedent for creating other such templates, such as one for the American Shonen Jump, Shojo Beat, and the dozens of other manga anthologies currently or previously in-print. -- 1368:. As erachima states, this is a perfectly legitimate way to have navigation between related article (related because they appeared in the magazine at the same time or in the same time period). Having smaller lists by decade is an excellent way to keep the navigation list from getting out of hand. I also agree with the crosslinking point. ··· 1226:

I believe StrangerAtaru was referring to the fact that the current template is being placed on series articles when those series have not been run in several decades, which means that the usage is incorrect, not that the template needs to be updated. That being said, perhaps these templates could be

1183:

I created all those templates because I need a means to keep track of many of the Jump series that don't have templates. Many series were being given the "current Jump template" that haven't been in the magazine for twenty, even thirty years. I figured that by creating templates that would link

1295:

is presently far too long to be useful to the average reader. I would suggest subdividing the page into similar periodic lists, and restricting the main list to titles of a certain length, which could then be used alongside these templates. "5 or more years" might make a good cutoff for the main

1184:

them to their appropriate period, we would have a means to at least have something for them to keep track of and connect to the magazine. The only other way that we could do that is creating a category but somehow I imagine that if I did that then that would be deleted as well. -

751:

Both article talk pages have had the reference to s-awards nowiki'd, and a ref to s-ach added. All the user talk pages and user pages linking to the template, and editors of the template had a tfdnotice stuck on their user talk pages. Hope that satisfies your concerns.

362:- Tag the page, wait 7 days, and if nobody removes the tag it's then deleted. If somebody objects it comes to TfD, and there's another 7 day period, with the handicap that folks looking at the TfD may think somebody's tried to bypass scrutiny. 7 days MIN, 14 days MAX. 1285:. Grouping the SJ series we have articles on by decade is a perfectly fine use of a navigational template, as the notable series which ran in a given period constitute a well-defined subject. These templates also give some much-needed 130: 465:- as per nom. I don't know if things have changed, but I used to nominate most of my old, unused templates using CSD and I rarely had any problems and it never took 7 days. Often it only took 3 or less. Hence why it is called 112: 1318:

I like the idea of a "Major Jump series" list, but my problem with that is that if we go by five year periods, what would happen to those series that were equally important but lasted less time? There are series such as

1117:

These are four completely unnecessary and excessive templates. WSJ has run dozens of titles in its decades long history. This is not appropriate template material, it is list material which is already well covered by

865:- What a happy day to see this template finally removed. This and "s-ecc" were the most persistently annoying left-behinds of the early days of WP:SBS and I am glad to vote "delete" on this once and for all. 1109: 1073: 1037: 1001: 1091: 1055: 1019: 983: 699: 321: 1349:. I think if we want to make a "Major Jump series" list, we need to create criteria that exhibit what makes these series crucial to the knowledge and understanding of WSJ as a magazine. - 292: 1154: 274: 42: 37: 1296:

list, since the current tables are done by half-decade. This arrangement would be much easier for readers to navigate, and in the long term could also make for some excellent

1205:

A category would be a much more appropriate way of creating such a link. If the current Jump template has out of date information, the solution is to maintain that template. —

1085: 1049: 1013: 977: 633: 1292: 1119: 392: 138:

It is not now nor is it likely to ever be used as a template. It is an article in template space. As an article, it would be subject to speedy deletion (

1081: 1045: 1009: 973: 932: 1123: 106: 680: 632:

there are still several transclusions. I am thinking documentation somewhere is still directing people to use this so I will list this in the

433:

unused redundant template. Additionally, CSD:T3 is a very poor criteria, I can't imagine any instance when using it over a TfD is preferable.

662: 102: 60: 21: 1227:

merged into the current one? They seem to only be major series (not that I would know), and it would help cut clutter by just that much. —

1265: 1172: 1139: 1291:

As for the list you mention, I believe the templates have a complementary function, not a redundant one. It's also worth noting that

1238: 883: 849: 525: 487: 449: 17: 1304:. (e.g. "Weekly Shonen Jump manga, 1980-85", "Lists of Weekly Shonen Jump manga", "Major Weekly Shonen Jump manga titles"...) -- 268: 1252:

From what I've seen, its every series run during that time that we have an article for, with only the redlinks removed.--

901: 771:

no need for it to take up any extra space on here if everything is at s-ach, although a redirect might be a good thing. –

569: 264: 216: 1374: 1358: 1313: 1269: 1243: 1214: 1193: 1176: 1143: 966: 907: 890: 857: 808: 781: 761: 746: 729: 711: 645: 575: 554: 533: 494: 457: 404: 378: 348: 333: 257: 191: 176: 158: 95: 1331:

which don't have the same amount of time in the magazine but are just as important in the history as stuff such as

1389: 948: 922: 616: 590: 232: 206: 76: 1388: