Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18[edit]

Template:Tenchi Muyo Char[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 redirect as the character list has been merged with {{Tenchi Muyo!}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tenchi Muyo Char (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose Redirect to {{Tenchi Muyo!}}. Both templates occur on 46 pages, but {{Tenchi Muyo!}} may safely be included on all 84 pages on which at least one of there templates appear. (I have already performed a merger in a <noinclude> section, as such articles are currently unaffected). G.A.S ^talk 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say simply be bold and do it - that's how I've almost always done navbox merging, at least. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the amount of articles affected, this seemed like a better idea;) G.A.S^talk 19:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, to each his own, then. ;) Support. *hides in corner from sheer number of "supporting" characters with their own articles* 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a duplicative subsection of the proposed target, it sounds reasonable: Support. (I personally would have waited on this until the non-notable character articles were merged into the character list, but different strokes for another man's meat, and all that.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the same reserve than Dinoguy1000 & Quasirandom. Merge before the non-notable articles would spare you a bunch of edits. --KrebMarkt 14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the result is redirect, I believe that a bot will take care of the template substitution, hence quick, easy and painless:) G.A.S ^talk 15:37, 19 August 2009 (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:CONCACAF Gold Cup/Championship top-scorers[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) 03:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CONCACAF Gold Cup/Championship top-scorers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since any of the big continental cups such as the UEFA Euro or the Copa América don't have this kind of templates, the CONCACAF Gold Cup shouldn't have a top scorers template. Black 'n Red 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Maybe this is an act of jealousy, I don't think something important like all-time golden boots of the zone should be deleted. There's no real reason to delete this template. If you think this is unffair to other confederations then build the tamplates for them.d4rkm4573r 17:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC-5)
Delete The leading scorer in one tournament is not notable or defining in the article of a leading scorer in another. This is a case where a central list and a succession box would work better, imnsho. Reso lute 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Resolute. A succession box would be much more appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (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:Darren Ross[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 Speedy delete as G8 and A9. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Darren Ross (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template used only for articles for articles nominated for deletion under A9 Skier Dude (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (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:TV network logos[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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV network logos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox linking between galleries of TV logos that should, mostly, not exist. No central article, as this topic is of minimum notability. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for above reasons. Trivialist (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles exist, such as NBC logos, as do sections within other articles, such as CBS#Logos and slogans. Since there is no standardization in the naming of the articles or whether the subject gets a separate article or just a section within the larger article about the network, it actually seems pretty helpful to have a navigation template to locate them. The argument above is basically that the articles shouldn't exist, which is an argument that belongs in an AfD for those articles, not here. If/when the related articles are deleted, then there would be a very good argument for deleting the template. Until then, it seems like putting the cart before the horse to delete a useful navigation template just because there is a not-yet-consensus objection to the articles that it links. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have any opinion about the template itself, but realize that its deletion is part of a larger attempt by some users to wipe out an entire topic from Wikipedia. They have suddenly started removing or tagging information about television logos on the site. What started out as an effort to reign in over-use of fair use images has now turned into the sudden deletion of all logo and image-related information. The view held by these users seem to be that information about logos is of no interest to readers and that such information shouldn't be included, period. I don't think there is consensus for this view, and personally believe the identity of worldwide television networks to be a topic notable enough for Wikipedia. Väsk (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is about the template. If you have an issue with specific edits or the actions of a specific user, there are other pages for that. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per RL0919. Gage (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the template would more or less fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The template is already beginning to get cluttered with miscellaneous, scattered network links and will grow into a gargantuan list which won't do much to improve the content of the wiki. This is a classic case of making a list for the heck of it; I can hardly see the use of such a box. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per RL0919 --T1980 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me neutral- I can see now that there are some legitimate articles tied together using this template. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per RL0919. --Svgalbertian (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- We shall all add more logos! 24.183.52.110 Talk/Contribs

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.