Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

February 12

Template:Avitag

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 Speedily deleted per a healty mixture of WP:CSD#G5, WP:CSD#T2, WP:CSD#G6, WP:BITE, WP:BLOCK and WP:ROLE. Happy‑melon 20:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template created without explanation by blocked user which is cluttering up user pages.. SEWilco (talk) 19:56, 12 February 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:Llanelli Scarlets 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is no longer used. It doesn't fit in with either navbox type. One already in use. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move Template:Llanelli Scarlets current to Template:Llanelli Scarlets squad - The title "Llanelli Scarlets current" doesn't even make sense. Current what?! – Pee Jay 10:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is still is use.GarethHolteDavies (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Looking through, agree with Peejay replace the one that is asking to be deleted with the red one.GarethHolteDavies (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the information over.GarethHolteDavies (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move Seems like action has already been taken. Perhaps the other one can now be actioned for deletion as that is the one that stands out as being badly named. Will hold off on that until this is sorted out.Londo 06 14:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what went on above, but the template under discussion has clear utility as a navigational template. Don't like the colour, but that's another story :D. Happy‑melon 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template that I brought the deletion movement about for has been phased out and replaced by a club standard variant. This TFD can be closed down. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 18:24, 13 February 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:Bozeman Icedogs seasons

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 was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template that links only to user space. It seems intended to link to season articles about junior team ice hockey seasons. Consensus was reached previously that such articles are not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Djsasso (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not necessary. Happy‑melon 21:40, 12 February 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:Lifetime

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 redirect, I also have taken in Magioladitis's suggestion, since this template is easier to remember than the {{BIRTH-DEATH-SORT}} template. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Seems all the job can be done by {{BIRTH-DEATH-SORT}}. A discussion held for the BIRTH-DEATH-SORT indicated that lifetime can be replaced by it. Magioladitis (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - agree {{BIRTH-DEATH-SORT}} is a better template and can replace {{Lifetime}}, although the B-D-S seems cumbersome to type. Dl2000 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the original creator, let me express my lack of concern about this being deleted. If it's deleted, someone will have to fix the several hundred pages that use it. But if it's redirected, then it will continue to be used. I agree something should be done, but I don't particularly care which. –RHolton ≡– 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nom and previous discussion. Happy‑melon 10:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs I noticed, in all cases defaultsort already exists in addition to lifetime and in many cases birth-death categories exists as well. It looks that users were at all familiar with this template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AWB run can replace Lifetime with BIRTH-DEATH-SORT. At about 300 pages use lifetime. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if necessary. Much easier to type and remember than the awkward "BIRTH-DEATH-SORT". Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest: Delete lifetime and tehn rename BIRTH-DEATH-SORT to lifetime or something else easy to remember. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No reason we can't do it this way. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 18 February 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.