Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 12

< April 11	April 13 >

April 12

Template:Broken

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 redirect to {{cleanup-link}}. Please open a new TfD if you would like the target template deleted. --ais523 12:39, 20 April 2007 (U T C)

This is a bad idea for a template. Broken external links should be removed, not kept, and that would make this template unnecessary. — —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 16:37Z

Delete - the only usage of this is at DotGNU#External links. Although such a template might be a good idea, external links are not as important as the article, and if it's not a basic fix, they can be removed, or . Gracenotes ^T § 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't their a bot that does EL checking and marks/moves them if broken ? I remember seeing something like that. Regardless, if this template is not in use by such a bot or anything, then I don't think it's useful. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is a bot that does that. Commenting them out seems like the best to me, however; rather than using this template. (This template is also rather new.) Gracenotes ^T § 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment broken external links should generally be fixed, not removed! If at all possible Commenting them out may be acceptable; better to retrieve a working version from the wayback machine. We even have templates for exactly that. This came up before at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 30#Template:Cleanup-link. Don't have an opinion on this particular template yet (and don't have time to research further at the moment), but I want to at least call this to people's attention (and help dispel the widespread and incorrect notion that we should delete broken links). Xtifr _tälk 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to redirecting this template to {{cleanup-link}}. It's the same template in much shorter form. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 03:01Z
- That sounds like an excellent plan. Any objections from the peanut gallery? Xtifr _tälk 03:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No objections here, although I'm mildly against the existence of the target template (what's going to take longer: finding this template, or fixing the problem?). Would including {{cleanup-link}} in this nomination be an acceptable action? Gracenotes^T § 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It survived TfD before without consensus. I'm not keen on adding it to this nomination as it wouldn't get its full seven days. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-14 01:03Z
Redirect to {{cleanup-link}} --62.87.59.154 17:58, 17 April 2007 (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:Survivor contestants

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 wthdrawn. Was going to be keep or no consensus anyway. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category, which functions just fine. In the end, it's really not needed because it only lists the contestants with pages and not everyone. — Scorpion 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per Scorpion. This template on lists contestants with pages. This is what a category is for. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement. YechielMan 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like this template has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages listed at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Article series boxes. I'm not going to copy and paste them here, but I think it's worth a read. --Maxamegalon2000 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This isn't a reason to keep, of course, so I'm mentioning it separately, but there seem to be a number of similar templates for characters in television series. I wonder if we would be better served by nominating all of them at once, so that we could end up with some sort of consensus or precedent. I don't want this to be taken as a threat, but if this template is deleted I will likely create a mass nomination of the other relevant templates, as I did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. Of course, if anyone wants to beat me to it, feel free. As I said then, I am a much bigger fan of consistency than I am of any single article/list/template. --Maxamegalon2000 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a threat and like a violation of WP:POINT to me. -- Scorpion 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template has a better scope and is more comprehensive than all the other Survivor templates. If the template listed all contestants as red links or plain text, it'd be redundant to season articles and serve no navigational purpose. Categories and templates can coexist redundantly. Remember the point is to be able to get between related articles quickly. –Pomte 17:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I hereby withdraw my nomination of this page for deletion. -- Scorpion 00:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Pomte, in case Scorpions withdrawl doesn't instantly fix things. -- Zanimum 20:16, 19 April 2007 (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:Ghana squad 1991 FIFA U-17 Championship

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons. First, precedence has normally been against all but the champions of major tournaments (of which FIFA's under-17 is not one). Second, a WikiProject Football discussion agreed with this idea, and even moreso. Finally, there is an article 1991 FIFA U-17 World Championship squads with the same info (and more) as the template already. Link to the article on each player's page, and the template is unnecessary. Neier 13:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments at this similar TfD. Resolute 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Template:Ghana squad 1995 FIFA U-17 Championship.

Delete both Youth football squad already discussed. Matthew_hk t c 07:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 07:39, 18 April 2007 (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:Macedonia 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons. First, precedence has normally been against all but the champions of major tournaments (of which the Euro is one). Second, a WikiProject Football discussion agreed with this idea, and even moreso. Finally, this template seems to be for the current qualifications, of which there are several matches, and the team is not guaranteed to have the same players each time. — Neier 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a final round event. Matthew_hk t c 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for the reason that not all of them are notable. KRBN 09:15, 18 April 2007 (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:Pov phrase

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. I've replaced its only transclusion with {{cn}}. --ais523 12:41, 20 April 2007 (U T C)

Delete This seems to be a meta comment wrapped into a template. And as we know, We are not really supposed to use question marks in articles, much less in a template. And I don't see a real use for this besides. Btw, Category:Phrases which convey a POV is intertwined with this template. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from anything else, I'm not sure what it adds to the more encyclopedic {{cn}} tag. --Dweller 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments from Woohookitty --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove it from the only article to which it is unceremoniously transcluded. Who writes encyclopedias this way? YechielMan 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who writes comments this way? Delete and use the talk page instead. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-13 02:59Z
Ed Poor, that's who. Delete FeloniousMonk 16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Woohookitty. Acalamari 18:14, 16 April 2007 (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:Wyong Shire Schools

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template links to articles that won't be and should never ever be created according to WP:SCHOOL. Todd661 11:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOL is not a policy and there has been ongoing debate about high schools. Whether these schools in particular are notable has to be determined by consensus at WP:AfD if the articles are to be created. Is it clear this is the template author's plan? –Pomte 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - navigational boxes for school districts are not standard, and this one is probably too small for a template. Gracenotes ^T § 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, renominate in 6 months if no progress is made. Nardman1 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template, make a list article instead. >Radiant< 08:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer to see a list article or something. Why a navbox, when there is nothing to navigate yet, and possibly will never be there to navigate --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of intention to create these articles. –Pomte 02:51, 17 April 2007 (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:ORGCompanies

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 Speedy Delete per author request. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misspelling, empty. — Aboutmovies 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; only because the author of the template (Aboutmovies) requests it (above), and can request for it to be undeleted if he needs it to be. Gracenotes ^T § 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aboutmovies 04:13, 12 April 2007 (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.