Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 2

< November 1	November 3 >

November 2[edit]

Template:Attraction Marketing[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) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attraction Marketing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Probably a mistake by user who also created article Attraction Marketing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a template. Already exists in article space, so nothing of value stands to be lost here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not used, and it would be a misuse of templates if it were used. --RL0919 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 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:Infobox City Russia[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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old infobox that is redundant to {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} and has been deprecated since February 2007. Currently used on just two articles. RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Deprecated it is, and as for those two articles, I'll personally make sure they use the proper infobox, but there is absolutely nothing to gain by deleting this template. It is not in the way of anything, and leaving it in place allows to properly show the infoboxes when viewing old histories of articles that used it in the past. A redirect will not achieve the same effect as the parameter set of this template is incompatible with the parameter set of the modern template.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the concern, but if preserving the format of articles in history were a significant barrier to template deletion, then very few templates would actually be deleted. For that matter, changes to existing templates also change their appearance in historical versions. Seems like this is something that needs a technical solution, rather than a good reason to oppose deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also understand your position. When an obsolete template stands in a way of a newer version, had never been used on a large scale, or is detrimental in some other way, I'd favor its deletion myself. In this case, however, we have a template occupying space no one claims (and is not likely to claim); it was used fairly extensively in the past, and it does not interfere with anything at all (except for being an eyesore). Since we have no technical solution (which, I agree, would be a great thing to have), I find the deletion totally unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing to gain by deleting it, but there are things to lose, however minor. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

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:Infobox Spanish city[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 and replace with {{infobox settlement}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Spanish city (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to infobox settlement used in articles like Madrid etc. Box looks bloated and is clearly redundant, there is absolutely no need why this should exist.. Himalayan 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have notified WP:SPAIN of delete discussion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, except for the bit about bloatiness. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge would be uncontroversial. I don't see a need to bring this to TfD while the work is still to be done on that front. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Soon Plastikspork is going to standardise the Spanish municipality articles so he will convert this template first before replacing it, so nothing will be lost. Himalayan 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. A city is a straightforward example of a settlement, and there does not appear to be anything in this template that can't be handled by the more common one. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Infobox Settlement. - Darwinek (talk) 09:59, 7 November 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.

September, 2008 template family[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) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:11 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:12 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:13 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:15 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:16 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:17 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:18 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:19 September, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contents has no special relevance to title, template not used on mainspace. Rjwilmsi 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire list above. The only use of these appears to be at Portal:Karachi/Daily Economic Indicators/Archive, which doesn't require templates and which treads into WP:NOT territory. --RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Looks like part of a project that was abandoned after a week or so, and which has been untouched for well over a year since. Retaining this sort of data isn't really in scope for Wikipedia -- we don't even have data for even the Dow Jones, so a relatively obscure Pakistani stock index definitely doesn't fit. Zetawoof_(ζ) 16:21, 4 November 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:Aquadeias[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) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aquadeias (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template named after the user who created it (User:Aquadeias). A template which such a name is not likely to be of any use on Wikipedia and therefore does not belong in mainspace. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. The only use of this is on a sandbox page in Aquadeias' own user space. If that's all it is to be used for, then I don't have a problem with it, but it does not belong in template space. --RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Update to delete. Upon further inspection of the page this is used on, I realized that the template is redundant to {{Inuse}}, so there is no need for it even in user space. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Am concerned that this user may be attempting to set up his own fantasy wiki and is disguising it from deletion by hiding it behind User:. --Falcadore (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this discussion is only for deletion of the template. If you think this user is creating inappropriate pages in user space, you should take that up with the user or at WP:MFD. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RL0919. GlassCobra 14:17, 3 November 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:Bloom County[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 boldly redirected by nominator Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bloom County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as made redundant by {{Bloomcounty}}. - Dravecky (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and redundant to {{Bloomcounty}}. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Bloomcounty}}. It's redundant, but the title is reasonably useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:45, 3 November 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:Archer class fast patrol boat[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. Ruslik_Zero 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archer class fast patrol boat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Not an orphan (at least not at this time), but~~ it is entirely redundant to {{Royal Navy ships}}. Correction: It is an orphan, but there is another template {{Archer class patrol vessel}}, that is virtually identical and is in use. So this is doubly redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 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:Airport Express colour[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 09:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airport Express colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tsuen Wan Line colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old and unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:57, 2 November 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:3TeamRR[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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3TeamRR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Appears to be related to {{3TeamRR-TennisWide}}, which is in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:54, 2 November 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:Atsinanana Region[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. Ruslik_Zero 09:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atsinanana Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A sea of red links and unused in any articles Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links for navbox. Has been around since May 2008, so there has been plenty of time to create new articles from the redlinks if that was the intention. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 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:African COTW nom[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. Ruslik_Zero 09:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African COTW nom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old and unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template is for a WikiProject collaboration effort that has been inactive since January 2007. --RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 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:1ColPollTable[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 Merge. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:3ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:4ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:5ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:6ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:7ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:9ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:10ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:12ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:14ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:15ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:19ColPollTable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old and unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what is it? And you left a whole bunch of related templates off this deletion list. See {{ColPollTable Navbar}} – 76.66.203.102 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ones that I left off have (or had) at least one transclusion. They appear to be used to format historical college sports polls. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, 20ColPollTable is being used here. Another interesting point is that the template actually longer than the code that it generates. If someone wants to join the others to the list, that would be fine with me. However, I decided to start with the unused ones. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. They are used for various college sports ratings articles, such as 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings. Certain polls encompass the whole season while others start later in the season. While I don't think all the above are necessary, it is possible they could be used in the future should the polls change when they begin or the season lengthens (as it did for college football around 2004).—NMajdan•talk 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be unused, and unlikely to be used. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. I am the template creator. While some of these are not used, they could be used temporarily during a season for a short period, and then discarded. The documentation describes this method: Instead of just putting in the 16-week expected length version, someone could start with the 1-week (col) version and then walk-up to the 16-week (col) version. While they may not be currently used, there may be an instance that these are needed in the future. Keeping them, and the entire template system is no harm and seems illogical to delete "random" ones that aren't just currently used, because it would break up the system. It is entirely possible, as well, that all weeks/cols that are plus or minus 1 than currently used templates could be used in the future with calendar weeks getting shuffled and expanding or contracting seasons by a date. MECU≈talk 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then why not merge them all into one template and make using the complete number of weeks optional? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all from the navtemplate together into one, and actually have some documentation to explain this thing. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one template as suggested above. The content appears to be relevant, but having a separate template for each week isn't necessary and makes them seem unused, which is apparently what led to the nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 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:Afro Samurai[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 - no objections. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Template:Afro Samurai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) A template is unneeded for such a short series with not very much media. Comments? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Five articles is not quite enough links to justify a navbox. New material is still being produced, so it could be recreated in the future if/when there are more links. --RL0919 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 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.