Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 23

< June 22	June 24 >

June 23

Template:Manchester United 2005/2006 Season 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. Pax:Vobiscum 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link to this template, it is largely irrelevant and also much too cumbersome to be useful. — PeeJay 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and my comments in the section below regarding another club team. Neier 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't even link to the intended article, or its use is nullified because it's substituted. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only current club templates are allowed. Punkmorten 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Evilclown93 and Punkmorten above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:09, 30 June 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:Needs more images

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. Pax:Vobiscum 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had a template like this called Template:Reqimage that's been deprecated in favor of a wide variety of templates I only just now added to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. This template is unnecessary. — Morgan Wick 18:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates say the same thing I'll replace that one with the original one.→041744 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you used the deprecated template. As I said in my nom, we use more specific templates now, which are listed on the deprecated template itself. Morgan Wick 09:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too general and inferior to those other templates. –Pomte 16:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the other templates listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Images are more specific, so this one should not be needed. EdJohnston 19:13, 24 June 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:Denmark Squad 1912 Olympic games

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 all. IronGargoyle 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been generally agreed that only squad lists for FIFA World Cup involvement should exist. — slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Previous discussions on this can be found in the WikiProject Football archive here.

Delete per nomination. As much as I dislike the proliferation of these templates (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 17#Template:East Germany Squad 1976 Olympics for another open nomination), I'm still open to debate on the older Olympic templates. I think that until the 1960s, there was no age restriction in the Olympics, meaning that the same teams as in the World Cup could participate. That makes the argument to delete these three templates slightly weaker; but, not weak enough that it should override the project's previous guidance. If the football project wants to look more at this, is another question... Neier 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 30 June 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:Cruzeiro EC Squad Copa Libertadores 1997

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. Pax:Vobiscum 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been generally agreed that only current squad lists for football (soccer) clubs should exist. — slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Having club team templates for every season seems like a very bad idea, especially since there are some who feel that individual articles on seasons are not worthy of wikipedia. Neier 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bad template idea. Punkmorten 18:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sort of thing could get really out of hand. ArtVandelay13 09:43, 2 July 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:Infobox Ships

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 speedily deleted by Wknight94. Non-admin closure by matt br 08:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not a true template, as it simply calls on another template to do work. Note that this template is unused and the template it calls upon does not exist. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete useless. -N 16:54, 23 June 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:Divisions of IISc

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the links are red links and the template is not being used by any articles. Useless — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. matt br 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No use for a link-less template. --tennis man 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And we find another prodddable template. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 30 June 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:AFL Sydney Swans

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of better template:AFL Syd — DH85868993 04:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the old and the new. Why are we using templates to substitute typing in a single Wikilink? --fuzzy510 04:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even a template. Can people not type? --tennis man 15:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another proddable template. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Template does not appear to meet WP:TMP. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:01, 30 June 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:Dated episode notability

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 keep This is a cleanup tag that reflects current guidelines. We don't TFD templates being used by guidelines. While the discussion about those guidelines isn't finalized, the element regarding the template has a consensus. If N still needs clarification he can use WP:TVE's talk page, the template's talk page, or WP:EPISODE's talk page. WP:CANVAS does not apply, as this is article cleanup. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User TTN is marking hundreds of episodes with this template, with up to 13 edits a minute[1]. He appears to be canvassing for a Wikiproject [2][3]. The process TTN is pointing to isn't even policy, it's a proposal. Given the inappropriate WP:CANVASsing this template is being used for and the fact it is duplicative of existing templates I propose its deletion. — -N 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What duplications? Because the template was decided upon by several editors, because it would be rather excessive to use half a dozen tags on 1 article, when you can comprise a single tag that explains everything necessary. If there are truly duplicate tags, maybe they should be deleted for be of lesser quality. This tag is part of a time stamp, which automatically lists articles into a review category after 14 days so that we know what episodes are problem articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{notability}} for one. And {{articleissues}}. Also take your pick from this list. -N 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is a dated template that will update articles to a category for easy finding. This template is used to alert editors to a specific problem, by directing them to the proper guideline. The others you have are general templates, non-specific to this particular cause. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that tagging every article in existence and directing users to "the cause" is appropriate? And what happens when the clock on the template runs down? -N 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I take your comment to mean you haven't actually visited the pages yet. I'll try and explain the best I can. The tag itself is an alert. Putting something on the talk page only works for people that have the page saved, and not to the casual editor that stumbles across the page, who might have some skill at cleaning up articles. The tag itself is specific to the Television WikiProject. As stated, after 14 days the tag automatically uploads all those articles to a category, which is used by the editors associated with that taskforce. We use it so easily, and quickly find articles. Articles we are clearly nothing but plots and non-free images (there are quite a bit of those) are automatically redirected to a parent article (which has also been given a separate tag to alert those editors to what is going on with the episodes related to that series). This redirection of articles like this is for the purpose of protecting against copyright laws. Non-free material, as I'm sure you know, must be justified by fair use laws (or in this case, by Wikipedia's guideline on said things). With no encyclopedic critical commentary, it's best to redirect immediately following the 14 days. Any articles that actually show the possibility of actually fulfilling notability criteria are then taken to a review page. At this page, the editors from this taskforce, and anyone else that wants to (as there is a tag that is going to be used to alert editors to the fact that a review is taking place) will look over the article more critically and discuss it's possibilities at fulfilling the criteria. The outcome could be redirect/merge, or deletion (highly unlikely of the last option). If an article is deemed to have the ability to expand and become notable, then it is given the leeway of extended time to actually accomplish that goal. In reality, the 14 days only really applies to when it is listed in the category, and chances are most articles will have much longer than that, because it will take time to go through each article. Think about it, there are probably more than 1000 episode articles on Wikipedia, that's going to take time, especially when you have to review a lot of them one-at-a-time. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole, just for clarity, the plan was never to automatically redirect for "plot-only" articles. AR was for articles that are little more than stubs, or that are just junk. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that after 14 days, if an article has nothing more than a plot then there isn't a review necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a lot better than what was previously happening, which was redirects to parent articles en masse. This at least gives contributers fourteen days to get it up to snuff. It's not canvassing, its attempting to allow editors to show notability, so that the article isn't redirected on sight, resulting in lots of problems. And the proposal is attempting to let people decide if an article is notable, which is again still better than vast amounts of AFD's or redirects Alcemáe T • C 06:05, 23 June 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:Wikiballoon

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. Pax:Vobiscum 08:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is now unused because of the many Birthday Committee templates.. GrooveDog 18:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see my old template has gotten better replacements :). —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superseded template. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 30 June 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.