Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 13

< November 12	November 14 >

November 13

Template:England Squad Euro 2004

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 page.

The result of the debate was orphan and delete all templates.--humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Template:Romania Squad Euro 2000's deletion, I nominate this template for deletion. At the same time, the similar Template:England Squad Euro 2000 and the residual Template:Romania Squad Euro 1996, which wasn't deleted in the last afd, are nominated. Poulsen 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the recently made, similar Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992 to this TFD too. Poulsen 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Poulsen 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Matthew _hk t c 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HornetMike 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stop these templates. Punkmorten 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 09:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992! There should be a box like this for the winners of the competition. ka la ha 10:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much navigation aid, and the winners can be found at 1992 European Football Championship squads anyway for those who are interested. Sam Vimes | Address me 12:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These need removing. -- Mattythewhite 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't like national team templates because theyy can get outdated fast. Kingjeff 00:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They don't become outdated, because they are for specific tournament squads. Poulsen 22:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That doesn't matter. It's the year that makes it outdated. I also find them pointless. If someone wanted to know a squad from a tournament, then go to the article for it. Kingjeff 01:50, 21 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Huh

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. --humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used, very vague, unhelpful and unencyclopaedic. The tfd tag is making a bit of a mess of the pages its used on, so someone might want to move it to the talk page, I couldn't decide. Tango 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. If the text is that incomprehensible, remove it and/or comment on the talk page. The tag doesn't help. I changed the {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix layout issues. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a tag for saying huh? What's the point?^[Huh?] – Elisson • T • C • 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Too vague. According to its talk page, 68.39.174.238 couldn't find a use for it either. --ais523 11:26, 14 November 2006 (U T C)

Note: I have attempted to find a use for it, in line with Wikipedia:Explain jargon and Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes#For inline article placement. I welcome further revisions, as a template with this memorable a name could be made excellent use of in some articels. 68.39.174.238 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be worthwhile if it said^[jargon?]? --ais523 11:23, 15 November 2006 (U T C)

I just linked to jargon, however it might be more useful generally if it was for any confusing text, similar to {{fact}}, and not just "multiphase opamp inverse schematics" or whatever. 68.39.174.238 10:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count me as abstaining on this one now it's been changed; I'm not active enough in this sort of cleanup to know if it's a good idea. --ais523 13:33, 15 November 2006 (U T C)
Keep and clarify as proposed by Ais523. Perhaps a suitable category like Category:Articles with unexplained jargon could be added much like {{fact}} adds articles to Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Slambo (Speak) 11:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new version looks better - might be worth keeping now. --Tango 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vague. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 09:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend people check out Category:Articles with confusing statements, now that they're clearly related. This may become as usefull as {{fact}} for marking of confusing nonsense that needs attention. See for example, Haussman's renovation of Paris, or the Port of SF. 68.39.174.238 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's clarified, it's previous version needed recursively tagged with itself. --tjstrf talk 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new version, just do not ever revert to the old! :) --Xtifr _tälk 08:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 68.39.174.238 has articulated exactly why I created this template and what I use it for. Hopefully now it's clear to everyone else. 8) -- Beland 17:40, 19 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Chilean 2000 Summer Olympics Squad

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not World Cup and Club , same function as medaltop. Matthew _hk t c 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew _hk t c 13:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the current consensus is to allow club and World Cup templates only. Not templates for lesser events such as regional championships or Olympic football. Punkmorten 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they competed in the Olympics, that's the one of the major sporting events in the soccer schedule (other than the World Cup). Rakuten06 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Olympic football comp is not a senior event and this page should suffice. The template's title is rather misleading also. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Slumgum. Sam Vimes | Address me 12:00, 16 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox singer

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template was created in August 2006, but remains unused. robwingfield ^«T•C» 10:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly redundant to {{Infobox musical artist}}. Xtifr _tälk 13:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Renesis (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would making it redirect to Template:Infobox musical artist harm anything? Because it seems like a reasonable term someone would use when trying to get that template. --tjstrf talk 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with doing that is that people would transclude {{Infobox singer}} rather than the main template, {{Infobox musical artist}}. This could cause problems in future - see Template redirects. Best to delete the redirect while it's not in use. robwingfield ^«T•C» 22:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another redundant template. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 09:07, 16 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Football Club3

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, template isn't used, and is redundant with Infobox football club (and the non used Club2 as well). Template is more than two months old, so doesn't seem to be in a testfase or somesuch. Fram 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, redundant. -- Renesis (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am nominating {{Infobox Football club2}} as well! Rolando 13:53, 19 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:RaelianExternalLinks

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a directory of links under guise of a template. Only being used by three articles. Any single Raelien movement article would not require all these links, only the most pertinent ones. Suggest deletion or merge with three aforementioned articles. Sfacets 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing that could not be put on an external links section. Chris Kreider 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what? Good idea, but let them click on raelian and figure it out. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:00, 19 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:K-LOVE

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 page.

The result of the debate was transclude and delete. --humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an entire article unto itself. Veinor (ヴエノル) 05:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is spammy and definitely not a template. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sure is spammy and dosent look like much of a template to me. Chris Kreider 11:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments and nom. Neil916 (Talk) 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to make sure it never becomes a template. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a user-test of some kind. ---J.S (t|c) 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is currently being transcluded to make the text portion of the K-LOVE article, and several other articles on radio stations which K-LOVE apparantly plays on. It's not a test, just a really weird formatting misunderstanding. I've substed the template into the K-LOVE page now, and am working on dealing with the other pages that contain it. --tjstrf talk 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks more like an article to me.--Seadog ^♪ 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a template. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even as a listener of KLove: creator appears confused at definition of a template. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:01, 19 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox film company

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a derivative of the company template that someone was trying to create for an article, but then realized it was better to use the company template. Does not appear to be in use. Suggest deletion. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 12:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Renesis (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. It was created less than 24 hours prior to this deletion nomination, but the author's contribution history makes it look like he gave up on it- transcluded it into one article, created the infobox, then went back to that article and removed the link to the template. I think it would have been nice to have attempted to contact the author to find out his intentions before nominating it for deletion, though. He may have plans to fix it before using it. Neil916 (Talk) 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on the template creator's talk page. Neil916 (Talk) 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete per nom. Author of the template doesn't appear to be planning to return to this experiment any time soon. Neil916 (Talk) 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 20:56, 20 November 2006 (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 page.