Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 21

[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 Useless template with no actual content, WP:CSD#T3/WP:IAR Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airlines of Liechtenstein (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation box with no navigation Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (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.
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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algerian Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with only redlinks. The usual procedure is to create articles first, then navigation second. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 21 January 2010 (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.
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 per db-author by author Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Altline light green (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can just delete this for you, if you like, rather than nominating it here. I'm just about the only editor, it's years old, and it's not being used, so there's no reason to keep it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:37, 22 January 2010 (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.
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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cat09 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (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.
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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 12:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romani infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template, should be substituted into the article Romani people and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should not be deleted already for licencing reasons. The template has an edit history. You can't copy-paste-move content and then delete the original, this violates GFDL. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Help:Merging. There are ways of keeping the edit history if it concerns you. For example, it could be first moved to a subpage, then blanked with the {{copied}} template placed on the blanked article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By that argument, I suppose that this edit also violated WP licensing since there was no record made of the copy-and-paste move in the edit summary. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (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) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (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.
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 No consensus. Valid arguments all around, neither view seems to have greater support. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael and Peter Spierig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The directors do not have their own articles and there are only three links in the template, one of which is red ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to body of work being too small to need a template for navigation. It would help for the directors to have their own biographical article and to have four or more works (that are blue links). Erik (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. It's the useful template. It's the only chain for connection of articles of Spierig Brothers's films. The article about the brothers [with the filmography of their own] has not exists. There is now an interwiki :). --Октавиус (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the template has only two items, and we do not know if more items will be forthcoming. Would you consider temporary deletion until they have made more films? In the meantime, the simpler chain that we can create here is a "See also" section at both blue-link film articles linking to the other film. Erik (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12.196.37.227 created the stub "Spierig brothers" via AFC so the "See also" section won't be necessary ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 05:29, 19 January 2010 (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) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not quite there yet in terms of the number of articles needed to make a useful navbox. No objection to recreating in the future if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (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.
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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keisha Buchanan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template containing only a few links, doesn't really aid in navigation. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If all the links were relevant, I might say keep. But articles such as those on record labels she recorded with are not sufficiently related to place this template there, and thus this template only serves to navigate a couple of articles, not enough to justify a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (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.
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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heidi Range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template containing only a few links and one red link, doesn't really aid in navigation. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If all the links were relevant, I might say keep. But articles such as those on record labels she recorded with are not sufficiently related to place this template there, and thus this template only serves to navigate a couple of articles, not enough to justify a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (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.
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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amelle Berrabah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template containing only a few links, doesn't really aid in navigation. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If all the links were relevant, I might say keep. But articles such as those on record labels she recorded with are not sufficiently related to place this template there, and thus this template only serves to navigate a couple of articles, not enough to justify a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (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.
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 per G7 and T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fußball-Bundesliga (women) 2005-06 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. We shouldn't connect football teams with navboxes just because they played in the same league for a year. Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I created this template a long time before, but it was more for reasons of ignorance when I was new to the wikipedia. The template should be deleted. OdinFK (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2010 (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.
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 Substitute and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AWMDB link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template directs readers to the Adult Web Movie Database and includes a link to the WP article for that DB. But that article has been deleted. So, why direct readers to a web site which we have deemed non-notable? Dismas|(talk) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete. The external link guidelines do not require a site to be notable in order for us to link there, but generally external links do not require templates. The use of templates for external linking is best reserved for widely used links or special cases (such as official links or links to Wikimedia sister projects). Since the individual links may be OK, they should be substituted prior to the template being deleted, with no prejudice against article editors removing the subst'ed links if they aren't helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2010 (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.