Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

September 16

Template:Xiaolinsidepages

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. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem useful, should probably be deleted. Jay32183 22:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense in the template namespace, I'm as confused as I get: more so than an Oddish after it used Petal Dance or a Gyarados that used Thrash. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the code, it seems to produce a fixed list of names; the arguments only affect the category sort key (at least if I take the most reasonable interpretation of what the template is trying to accomplish). I would say subst, except that it isn't used (and it's hard to see how it would be). --ais523 10:05, 18 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete --Swift 17:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary Template. Is not appropriate. Daniel's page ☎ 06:19, 22 September 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:Book

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are all deprecated by either {{Wikibooks}} or {{Cookbook}}. None of them are used in the article namespace, which is where they were meant to go. The only links to them are in old archives, each other, and pages about their deletion. kenb215 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also a comparison of these and the templates which take over their functionality. --Swift 05:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added {{Wikibookschapter}}. It was not included in the original list as it was still transcluded by around 90 pages. All but two pages (which I'm waiting to delete) have been updated. --Swift 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Swift. -- kenb215 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve as historical record in Wikipedia namespace or delete and let the new template take over fully for these deprecated interwiki linkers. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but subst: their use in old archives before deleting. --Swift 05:55, 17 September 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:Todo-buffy

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an unnecissary copy of {{todo}}, only a handful pages utilize this template. _→AzaToth 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-unless: I am loathe to delete WikiProject templates, unless the WikiProject is inactive. --Roninbk 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary Project fork of {{todo}}. Slay this vampire, Buffy, you know you want to. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not doing any harm, somebody created and used it and we need a better reason than this to wipe out their efforts. --kingboyk 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mostly redundant, but in use and adds some functionality (places in categories). Perhaps make sure this isn't listed on template lists and only on the Buffy project page so as not to encourage a proliferation in such forks. --Swift 17:48, 18 September 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:Ukrainian Professional Football Clubs List

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian soccer already has Template:Ukrainian_First_League_teamlist, Template:Ukrainian_Premier_League_teamlist, and Template:Druha Liha teamlist teamlist templates, in addition to a category. This template only makes some of the pages look even more ridiculous, such as this one. Palffy 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is redundant to the templates listed above. —dima/s-ko/ 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of two of the same shop right next to each other? Nothing, and it's as redundant as this template, so delete. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to Category:Ukrainian football clubs and List of football clubs in Ukraine. Oldelpaso 10:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally redundant. Qwghlm 10:55, 17 September 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:Networking protocols

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an apparently spam-filled, badly-designed include that's on all of thirty pages. Transcluded, it's a newbie trap for those who don't realize it's a template until they're already done editing it to more accurately reflect the proper content expected of the many pages on which it is improperly and erroneously placed (I should know, as I accidentally did this myself not long after I started on Wikipedia). I'm all for having a networking protocols template, and I even started to try to shape this one up at User:Omicronpersei8/sb/Template:Networking protocols, but Category:Network protocols

Already has a better listing and comes without the requirement of having someone run around collecting protocol names to toss onto this list
For the most part escapes the risk of spam which this template has apparently fallen prey to, and
Already has a listing of subcategories, which would eliminate the months of dreaming up appropriate new section headings which would be required to make this template legitimate

Again, I'm fine with a template for this, but this one is poorly defined, too short, non-technical in favor of commercial advertisements, and fairly misleading in its name. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that this was once entitled "Competing Technologies" and resided at Template:Wireless competitors paints the picture of being a vulnerable spam target for some time now. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found the link listing in this template useful. What categories do not do is describe what a link contains, so in that sense I'd oppose categorizing the template. I'm surely not opposed to making it better and/or more specific though. Cburnett 02:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign it as a more obvious template box and Delete Template:Wireless competitors. --Swift 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and Template:Wireless competitors unless they are redesigned in traditional bottom template style, rather than existing as regular lists. The current template is way too long. When there is a possibility of confusing a template with regular article text, you could add a box and/or shading to help identify it. However, I think that transcluding a template like this one does much more harm than good, although a non-transcluded template could also as be mistaken for article text at first. If descriptions would be useful, a single list (a regular list, not using the template) should be put on the communications protocol article, which is what networking protocol redirects to. If you do not want to put it there, then create an article titled "List of networking protocols". -- Kjkolb 14:38, 23 September 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.