Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3

Template:Eighthdoctorcompanions

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 debate was keep. Garion96 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Redundant. All 3 of these articles link to each other anyway. — Dalejenkins | 22:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Template is also used in parent template {{Doctorwhocompanions}}, not just the articles it links to. — Edokter • Talk • 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's that got to do with it? Dalejenkins | 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you nominate the other Firstdoctorcompanions to Tenthdoctorcompanions as well, a lot; this template maintains symmetry, gives a consistent look-and-feel to the category and eases maintenance. It would make no sense to transclude templates from the other nine and put this one in-line, or to have a link template under companions for only 9 out of 10 doctors. It also reveals that the template holds timeline info (which is not clear from this single template as this doctor happened to have the same single companion throughout; comparison with others would make this clear) --Rogerb67 (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YKeep per WP:IAR. Provides consistency of presentation across the topic in keeping with the style of {{Firstdoctorcompanions}} to {{Tenthdoctorcompanions}} etc. --Rogerb67 (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IAR is a good point, but I think Edokter's point is valid too. It does no harm to have it and it allows a consistent look&feel of DW articles. So there is some use and it's not like we need to save space. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Rogerb67, it's stupid to not have the Eight Doctor there, even if he only had one companion. --I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 13:47, 10 August 2008 (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:Mehran Mangrio/Status

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 debate was G7 by NawlinWiki , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mehran Mangrio/Status (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Improper use of Template space. Proper location is User:Mehran Mangrio/Status which indeed exists already. Enigma ^message 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete no need for such a template. Also unlinked except from deletion pages. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NDelete, agree with Enigma. --Mangrio (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2008 (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:Reqstable

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 debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Stable review version header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was used for stable version request, but since the process is dead, I'm nominating for deletion. Other templates used for this process were deleted, but I don't see anywhere that says why this one should be kept. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Stable review version header}} was added to the nom per below. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete no need to keep a template used to flag pages affected by a redundant process. Suggest {{Stable review version header}} be nominated as well. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - historical and obsolete. Terraxos (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2008 (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:Space Marine Chapters

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 debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Space Marine Chapters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is largely populated by entries that redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) or other targets in the Warhammer universe. — Protonk (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as author. No longer needed thanks to in-universe cleanup in the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G7. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recent merges have made this no longer useful for article navigation. Pagra shtak 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated, cleanup and mergers have rendered this template essentially moot. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:24, 7 August 2008 (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:Non-free reduced

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 debate was keep. Garion96 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free reduced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Deleting early versions of images is going to screw up the upload history, making it look as if the person who reduced the image is the original uploader. Further, the rationale used, CSD I5 (Unused unfree images) doesn't seem to make sense, as the old versions of images can't be used short of a direct link to the file on the upload server, and presumably the scaled down version is used in an article. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This probably should be discussed on a project talk page. Even if we delete these templates, a lot of admins will still be under the impression that this is an ok thing to do. -- Ned Scott 08:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the problem here. Anyone can revert to an old version of an image, so it's only correct that we delete previous versions that don't meet fair use guidelines. (And yes, that does make them "unused unfree images"). We don't otherwise retain the upload history for deleted images, so why should this be any different? PC78 (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't matter who appears to have uploaded the image. If it is fair use, the uploader doesn't own it anyway. Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting versions of the image too large to meet fair use criteria. Eliminating those large versions is the whole point of creating the smaller copy. -SCEhard T 15:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YStrong Keep If an image is not fair use, it should be deleted; if someone hadn't replaced it, it would need deleting anyway. If it doesn't meet WP:CSD#I5, it meets WP:CSD#I7, as the whole point of this template is it asserts the previous version was too big to meet fair use (doc updated appropriately). --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom raises a very valid concern. If this is kept we should probably require that it be noted in the text of the description about who originally uploaded it, pending some other technical means of tracking the original uploader. -- Ned Scott 09:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per SCEhardt, I don't think this is a valid concern. These are copyrighted images, they aren't owned by the uploader, so if the original revision is deleted it doesn't really matter who contributed it. That said, while this information is removed from the "File history" on an image page, I believe it is still retained in the "Revision history". PC78 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also by clicking on history and then "View logs for this page" on the image page you can still see the upload log entries for deleted versions if you rely need to know who uploaded the first version. --Sherool (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will concede that the current system probably causes a fair amount of aggravation in regards to deletion notifications; the person who resized the image ends up getting the notifications rather than the original uploader (who probably has more of an interest in the image). This might be fixed by having the bots look at the page history, although I'm not sure how they would know whether the earliest entry is related to the current image or simply a previously deleted image with the same name. -SCEhard T 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale for deleting the template is not a very good one. The template serves its purpose, and you can still see who originally uploaded the image by looking at the "history" tab, just like on any other page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per Ibaranoff24 and PC78. As an aside I used to do quite a lot of these deletions and always felt that it would be nice if re-uploaders added a little thing about who'd originally uploaded the image in their upload comment, in case people can't be bothered looking into the history - but I don't feel too strongly about it. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- on a fair use image, the upload history is not required for attribution reasons (it is in the text, but the text history isn't being deleted). There is no reason for us to be storing high resolution images on our servers. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2008 (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:As-comprehensive

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 debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:As-comprehensive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:As-start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:As-stubclass (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates. Appear to relate to an essay which has since been userfied about a year ago. — PC78 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst into the essay then delete. No potential for future use any time soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete No current use. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (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:Display-Class

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 debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Display-Class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused "-Class" template; presumably redundant to {{Image-Class}}. — PC78 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it genuinely is redundant - I don't know enough about the classification system to tell, but it seems that way. Terraxos (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2008 (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:Start-Class article

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 debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start-Class article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary. — PC78 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the GA icon, I cannot fathom a situation in which this would be genuinely useful. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Commons:Category:Class symbols; it appears that symbols already exist for each class, making this one redundant as well. PC78 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's not much reason to point out that an article is Start-class. Terraxos (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2008 (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:Table-Class

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 debate was speedy deleted under CSD G7 and G6. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table-Class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused "-Class" template. — PC78 (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was used for the couple of hours in which we had a Table: namespace. Since we don't have it anymore, there's no use to the page, so I'll speedy delete it as the author. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:59, 3 August 2008 (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:Leeds United A.F.C. assistant managers

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 debate was delete Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC) The subject is barely notable for mention in a football-club article, let alone having its own template. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Dudesleeper / Talk 12:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really not needed. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one template too far Natcong (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overkill. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one template too many. Peanut4 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary overkill. Qwghlm (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe having articles on this type of subject is blasphemy to football fans, but saying it's "overkill" is a bit much - after all we do have things like this you know. ugen64 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Malcomxl5. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid point. --Angelo (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I said delete below and I stand by that, I am concerned with reliance on WikiProjects and WikiEssays above. See this essay on undesirability citing such things. --Friejose (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds. It isn't. --Friejose (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (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.