Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 24 July 26 >

July 25[edit]

College wrestling teams[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) 16:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CAA Wrestling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Southern Conference Wrestling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The same editor created these at the same time without creating any of the corresponding articles that would necessitate them (as evidenced by their being made 3+ months ago and they still all contain only red links). Also, they all use the Big Ten Conference color scheme, which also shows lack of effort in throwing them together (at least take the 1 minute to see what the other respective conference navboxes look like). No need for any of these templates at all. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the statement that I showed a lack of effort in making these templates. I made a mistake with the color of them. Fine. I didn't pay attention to the colors. If they are deleted, I will make them again when and if I get the chance to create the articles. Gerry D (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the color schemes have been removed due to this TfD nom. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I just want to point that out in case anyone is confused as to what I was referring to. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started creating articles for the templates. For now I have stubbed Binghamton Bearcats wrestling for the CAA. Others to follow over the next several days and weeks. Gerry D (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Big Red wrestling is up. Gerry D (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davidson Wildcats wrestling is up. I am going to keep on working on these. It will take some time, but I hope to have them all at least started. Gerry D (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appalachian State Mountaineers wrestling is up. This gives two for the Southern Conference. More to come. Gerry D (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NAVBOX specifically links to WP:WTAF regarding this sort of thing. Navboxes are there to navigate articles which already exist, not as creation guides for new content. If and when there are established articles in need of navboxes these can be recreated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:57, 28 July 2011 (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:Biochemistry disambiguation[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) 04:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biochemistry disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 4 transclusions. We have {{Chemistry disambiguation}} already. No reason for that detailed subcategorisation. I would say this is overcategorisation. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (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:Science disambiguation[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) 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Science disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 1 transclusion. I am pretty sure that normal {{dab}} fits here. Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2011 (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.

Non-sovereign territories[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. The relationship and selection criteria for the links in these navboxes are unclear and possibly subjective. --RL0919 (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-sovereign territories of Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Non-sovereign territories of Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has no real purpose. A "non-sovereign" territory could be anything that isn't a sovereign state. At the moment it seems to be a weird mix of states with limited recognition, dependent territories, and a collection of various autonomous areas or constituent parts. It's hard to describe because there is no inclusion criteria. The dependent territories and states with limited recognition are already covered in Template:Countries of Asia and Template:Sovereign states of Europe, and the 'autonomies' all have a different statuses and there's no real connection between autonomies in different countries anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's a complete hodge-podge of places and doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Bazonka (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to older version - I've reconsidered my decision. Older versions of this template were much better and less random - see this version, for example. I think we should revert to something like that. (NB The version I linked to was randomly chosen from the page history, it may not be the most appropriate, but it's certainly better than the current content.) Bazonka (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, there are still discrepancies, although maybe they could be dealt with. For example, to include Kosovo and Metohija in such a template is fine, but to include the Republic of Kosovo, thereby implying that the entity is "non-sovereign" is incorrect. In any case, I stand by the logic that very few readers will want a single-click link from Papua province to a republic in Russia. Nightw 10:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What do Sicily, Kosovo, Mount Athos, Komi, and the Aland islands have in common? Nothing. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The articles are not sufficiently related to form a navigational aid to readers of each. Quigley (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator's reasoning is sound. Also, as the above editor pointed out, its links aren't related enough that it could be seen as a useful navigation tool. Nightw 09:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excessively broad inclusion criteria Curb Chain (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator. Good arguement for deletion. Delete both and redirect to existing main template. Outback the koala (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the comments here refer to the Non-sovereign territories of Europe template which needs work to bring it to a more consistent standard. The Non-sovereign territories of Asia template has been reworked using definitions from autonomous area, dependent territory and sovereignty articles as guides. Although inherently controversial, these terms provide a practical standard. These navboxes are relevant to those interested in indigenous movements, independence struggles and the evolving socio-political landscape. Bcharles (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell the Non-sovereign territories of Europe template differs from the Asian one differs only by the states with disputed status. Even if it is reworked, the question remains as to how this template helps navigation? The first thing readers will see is the title, "Non sovereign territories of Europe/Asia", a phrase which has almost no meaning. Upon reading the template, the reader is faced with a variety of territories united only in the fact they are not completely controlled by a central government. However, even within these, there is little relation. Each country determines how their divisions are autonomous in different ways. The status of the Republics of Russia for example, is completely different from that of North Sentinel Island. In essence, I don't see the navigational usability. This template doesn't suggest itself to guiding users who wish to see indigenous movements, some autonomous areas have nothing to do with ethnicity. Nor does it directly correlate to independence struggles, with some autonomous areas having negligible ones and many non-autonomous areas having them. The template also does not help the reader to understand the world's evolving socio-political landscape, as it focuses only on present day entities as they stand and the overview articles it links to do not create a greater understanding of socio-politics than any articles about a political unit would. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (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:WikiProject Persepolis F.C.[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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Persepolis F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer used in any functional capacity, and has been superseded by a parameter in Template:WikiProject Iran. – PeeJay 18:02, 25 July 2011 (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:Imperial election TOC[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, although there seems to be some interest in a generic template which produces a more compact format, there is also consensus for deleting single use TOC templates for single articles. As has been pointed out, {{TOC limit|limit=2}}, can be used in the interim to address the TOC length issue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imperial election TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Absolutely no need to have this intricate two-dimensional TOC for a single article. If the TOC is too long then it can be floated to the side, rather than maintaining a wholly separate page for a TOC with questionable accessibility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a complex-enough ToC that including it directly (rather than transcluding it) would clutter the page source dramatically. Having this as a template just makes it easier for editors to edit the page without worrying about what the big nasty table is. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there is no need to have such a complicated TOC in the first place. A linear TOC works well enough for several million other articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comments below — a linear ToC here would be very long and impractical. Just because something works "well enough", "for several million other articles" doesn't mean we can't use something different, that works better, here. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer see a need for such a template. The normal template has aspects of 2 dimensions, but this takes it to a new level: the normal TOC indents, This explains the phylogenetic relationships of the sections and subsectionsCurb Chain (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-standard navigation is likely to confuse, not help, our readers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason given as to why this article is special enough to have a 2dimensional toc Curb Chain (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without being two-dimensional, this ToC becomes very long. I'd suggest it's much easier to use as-is. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an article has too many section headers to be comfortable to navigate then it is perhaps better to think of a way to rewrite the article to alleviate that. We manage to avoid using hand-maintained, single-use custom TOCs for this purpose everywhere else in the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no way you could rewrite an article that includes a list of a finite, known number of elections that will never expand yet still have all of them linked in the ToC. Just because we "manage to avoid" doing this elsewhere doesn't mean that this isn't probably the best way of doing it here. Indeed, there are 28 items in this ToC; we have a very frequently-used 26- or 27- member "hand-maintained custom ToC" that we use all over the place because it simply makes things clearer: {{CompactTOC8}}. There's a whole category full of bespoke ToC templates, many of which won't be very widely used; where is the harm in this one? It makes the article substantially easier to use, deleting it would make the article less easy to use and more cluttered. I'm sorry, I completely fail to see how deleting this template would benefit the encyclopædia. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:CompactTOC8 is for english alphabet alphabetical lists
I've looked at the template again, and used it on the article, and I find that it is less useful than a standard TOC because I do not know where the sections fall under: It looks as though Spiritual · Secular · Changes are supraheadings of the centuries, but infact, they are subheadings of Prince-electors. For this reason, being not able to to see the hierarchy and the ToC "tree", i believe this template should be deleted. Curb Chain (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I realise {{CompactTOC8}} is for alphabetical lists, but it does establish the principle that a vertically-long ToC is not always optimal. I am more than happy to work on this template to make it clearer to use, but I think that deleting it entirely would be unhelpful and would not make the encyclopædia easier to use. Please feel free to suggest ways in which a ToC that is not vertically-long could be improved. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they broken up into century groups? Some 3rd level sections have "elections", meaning that more than one election occurred in that year. The break up into 100's of years is arbitrary in this context, and there is no general theme with the sectioning. Thus, the template still seems unnecessary. Curb Chain (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there are too many elections not to break them up in some way and centuries is an easy way to understand. (Indeed, the centuries are what the H2 headings were, before this template existed.) There is only one year with more than one election (1400). None of the third-level sections have multiple "elections" in that I can see. Sorry, I can't see how any of those arguments you just made is either accurate or reduces the usefulness of the template. Would you really rather have over a screen (over 700px by my measurement) taken up with a vertical ToC? that seems much less user-friendly to me! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, my mistake, the only year (a third level section) that has 2 elections in the same year is 1400. But your argument that breaking them up into centuries is also inaccurate because it is not proven on reliable sources, at least. Many TOCs are even lengthier than this one by both dimensions. But, also, I don't believe the article has been improved by your template workaround.Curb Chain (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the version without the template. As you can see, this is more standard, and the toc is not very lengthy. By height and by length.Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By width, I agree it's not that bad. By height, though, it's more than a screenful on my relatively-standard-sized laptop. Breaking them into centuries is uncontroversial, surely (the existing nav does that too — I don't follow what you mean about reliable sources in this context). And I know that many ToCs are much lengthier; that doesn't mean that we can't improve this one. Surely the nub of our disagreement here is that we disagree as to whether or not the template constitutes an improvement or not? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk)
What I mean by reliable sources is that the breaking up by centuries is not more efficient as reliable sources have not published that. But that argument has rendered moot as you are right that many pages do break up by centuries. But now your argument has been rendered moot as to why this page out of 3 million should have a nonstandard template. Yes, the nub is that I don't agree that this template improves the page, and you do, but you still have not made an argument why this page should not follow the standard toc on pages, other than that it doesn't look good, but that's on your laptop. Unfortunately, none of the other pages on wikipedia have been layoutdesigned for laptop monitors.Curb Chain (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, which infobox are you talking about?Curb Chain (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only person on a widescreen laptop monitor — surely it's a usability / accessibility thing to make sure the encyclopædia we're creating is as user-friendly as possible? (I do realise that our disagreement over whether this template helps or impedes that is relevant to that point as well ;o) Plenty of pages work very well for laptop monitors, I just think that taking over 700px of vertical space for a ToC that doesn't need to and could easily be two-dimensional is worth considering. This isn't the only page to use a non-standard ToC and, to be honest, if it makes articles easier to read and use, I have no problem with the concept that many pages could have bespoke ToCs. (I'm guessing you'd disagree there, which I can see is also a perfectly rational and reasonable position to take.) I'm not sure what you mean about infoboxes, though; I don'think I've mentioned them, have I? (Sorry, relatively early in my day here, so I'm not as caffeinated as I might be :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry you said nav, so I thought you meant nav box. If you mean the template at the bottom, that`s not a TOC issue, and is graphically, not hierarchical or phylogenetic. I took a look at the template again; one way to section-break up the article is to just use ==Elections== and list the elections by year and the one with the 2 elections by year list it with the month, as is already done on the article. This is the argument against using this a UNIQUE template: It`s not necessary: this template serves its purpose in its current state, but this is not the only way to portion the article.Curb Chain (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another rework of the article. I could remove ==Elections== and turn all its subsections into 2ndlevelheadings. I find this hierarchical structure in this and the hypothetical one better than the one with the template.Curb Chain (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did mean the navbox at the bottom of the page. I'm sorry, I still don't see what's wrong with a more compact, two-dimensional table of contents. There is nothing in the Manual of Style that forbids them, indeed Help:Section#Table of contents suggests that ToCs can be customised and there are several bespoke ToC templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Compact tables of contents. I can't see anything that discourages more compact ToCs and I can't see any reason why the logical division into centuries is somehow acceptable in navboxes but unacceptable in ToCs.
It very much feels as though this template and Template:SpecialCategoryTOC were nominated for deletion because the nominator dislikes bespoke ToCs, whereas the existence of so many ToC templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Compact tables of contents suggests that there is no policy of avoiding them on Wikipedia.
I'm sorry, but I'm still very much in favour of keeping this template in its current form. I strongly believe it is superior to a standard vertical ToC — even removing all second-level headings the ToC is still around 650px tall. I agree that this tempalte is not the only way to portion the article, but I still believe it is the most usable. My vote is still Keep. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those template all have more than one use: they are used on more than page. This template is used only on this page. This is not standard. This should be Deleted, as my !vote has not changed.Curb Chain (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "standard" here. Nothing in the MoS says that a single-use template is a bad thing. Indeed we have single-use templates elsewhere. I still fail to see what the problem is, I'm afraid. (Please do explain, if you can, as I'm genuinely curious as to why you find this objectionable.) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Standard" is wholly different from style. "Standard" is the 3 million+ other articles that don't use a unique customized template for a toc.Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Single use templates not in the TOC style.Curb Chain (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (or else Keep) - Wow. I wish more TOCs were as clear and easy to use as this template is. From a usability standpoint, this TOC is excellent. I tried replacing the template with a standard TOC (without saving it of course), and the standard TOC is not nearly as helpful or easy to use. I actually would like to recommend this to the programmers to see if they could somehow implement it as a standard option instead of having to create template to do this. Good job to the template developers. I'm not sure that the Template space is the most logical place for this since it applies to a single article. Perhaps (and I don't remember en.wiki's policies on subpages), it could be moved to a subpage and be called like this {{/TOC}}. That's my suggestion anway. Definitely keep if moving to a subpage is not possible. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see that point — I was tempted to suggest moving it into the article space earlier in the discussion, but I don'think that's something we usually do. Subpages are much more usual in the other namespaces, but I don'think I'm aware of any in the article space. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason for havin a custom TOC for this article. It could do reasonably well with {{TOC right}}, or {{TOC limit|limit=2}}, or... while avoiding maintenance overhead and the use of too many specific templates (aiding to cryptic editing). BUT it should be noted that the TOC looks quite good, maybe someone can write a *generic* use template to do this? If deleted I ask it to be kept, for reference, somewhere; may be as subpage at my user space, or wherever suitable. - Nabla (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rework This template should be reworked so that it can be used in other articles as well. Don't know whether the expectation that the template might be reworked in the future would justify a "keep", but the chances that it will be reworked is probably greater if the template is visible to all editors.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it means the template doesn't get deleted, I'm happy to give some thought as to how to rework it — I could definitely do with some help on what sorts of uses it might get put to, though. Is it a safe assumption that it would want to contain a potentially-large number of rows, each containing two columns (the bold header column of H2s and the non-bold column of H3s)? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:22, 26 July 2011 (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:Stations That Have a Acquisition of these from Fox Television Stations is awaiting FCC approval[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) 04:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stations That Have a Acquisition of these from Fox Television Stations is awaiting FCC approval (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Besides having possibly the worst template name ever, as far as I can tell none of the TV stations listed in this navbox actually has an acquisition pending before the FCC now (the template was just created today). Rather, they appear to be a group of television stations that were sold by Fox back in 2008. Even if the caption were changed to accurately describe the stations, the point of grouping them in a navbox escapes me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had been reverting this user from adding this "template" before it even existed. I don't even think I understand for sure what this is supposed to mean. Is the person trying to say "Stations which Fox Television Station have agreed to acquire but have not yet been able to do so while FCC approval is pending"? But then, Russ, you're saying that that isn't even an accurate statement? Hopefully the user can join the conversation here or one xyr talk page, because this should be deleted unless we can 1) figure out the exact meaning, 2) verify that the meaning actually matches reality, and 3) agree that this particular grouping is worthy of a template.
I got a message from the template creator on my user talk page; he/she said, and I quote, "What I Mean is the sales of the stations from Fox is pending on the sale to Local TV if you want to see more here is the link:http://www.bookrags.com//wiki/Local_TV see what i am talking about" That link is to a Wikipedia mirror that apparently was forked back in late 2007, when Fox sold a group of stations to Local TV LLC. That sale closed in mid-2008, a fact that is noted in the current version of the article, as well as each of the articles about individual stations linked from the template. Further investigation also reveals that Template:Local TV already exists, which is a navbox for all the stations owned by this entity; so, even if this template could be made accurate, it would still be redundant. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant template with long, ungrammatical, and out-of-date name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These stations were bought long back in 2008 by Local TV from Fox, and all of them are detailed further already in the Local TV and FTSG articles. Absolutely no need for this at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 1 August 2011 (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:Seconds From Disaster NavBox[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 again. --RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seconds From Disaster NavBox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox listing disasters featured in a cable television program about disasters. This template should be deleted because none of these disasters have any relation to each other and, no, being features in this program isn't a real relationship. Note how this is different from navboxes linking episodes from shows: it's just linking the subjects of various episodes. GrapedApe (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (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:World Water Polo Championship[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. Nominator withdrew nomination, no other arguments for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely redundant to {{Fina world champs}}. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the template is useful, because the other template has too much redundant links and infos about all the other sports at the fina champs which does not make sense to have it there listed. Example: The template at the men´s tournament 2011 has links to all swimming and diving events from the earlier years which is not useful and unnesessary to have at the water polo event. Kante4 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Kante4 said, {{Fina world champs}} is huge, this one is more suited. - Nabla (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Armbrust your concerns are fixed. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:42, 26 July 2011 (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 former Grand Prix motorcycle rider[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former Grand Prix motorcycle rider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge to the generic Template:Infobox motorcycle rider. It already covers MotoGP riders and also supports birth/death information. I need help to add First/Last race and "Former teams". Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2011 (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:''Shotru''[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 already deleted as a test page. JPG-GR (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:''Shotru'' (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not in use and has no clear use. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note User was blocked due to concerns about deceptive user name and actions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not used, new template, not a templateCurb Chain (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2011 (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:911ct/content/Seeking 9/11 Truth at Japan's Parliament/BookTitle[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 deleted per author approval.

Template:911ct/content/Seeking 9/11 Truth at Japan's Parliament/BookTitle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Doesn't appear to have ever been used nor does it appear to be useful as it only contains a title of a book. —Farix (t | c) 02:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note User was blocked due to concerns about deceptive user name and actions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not usedCurb Chain (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I have created the template. It's a leftover from an article that has since been deleted.   Cs32en Talk to me  10:56, 25 July 2011 (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:Non-free cereal box cover[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. Overspecific version of a more general template. Will recreate as a redirect to Template:Non-free product cover for the benefit of anyone who might be used to using this template. --RL0919 (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free cereal box cover (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific and barely used. This template can easily be replaced by Template:Non-free product cover or a more general template, such as a non-free box cover template. (Also, leave a comment on my talk page if this is answered.) Longbyte1 (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note User was blocked due to concerns about deceptive user name and actions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2011 (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 Shrek character[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) 04:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Shrek character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use, replaced by Template:Infobox character. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note User was blocked due to concerns about deceptive user name and actions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_25&oldid=1138695156"