Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 21

< November 20	November 22 >

November 21

Template:Teenage Robot

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 --The Helpful One 17:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teenage Robot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Cast templates are generally frowned upon. Remove the cast and you have character list, episode list, two non-notable specials and a video game. Not enough for a template in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template deserves to stay. Associating the article for Characters, Episodes, Actors, and series itself is still top priority. The remaining eposidoes are being released over the next few months. I would advise on reorganizing the template rather than deleting it. --Bushido Hacks (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you reorganize a template with only five links, including one which is at afd and one which is a redirect? This template has nearly nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as stated above, useless to have it CloversMallRat (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Klein zach 01:38, 28 November 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:Clone High

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clone High (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless to have, now that all the characters and episodes have been merged to main article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All links lead to the same article through a redirect. Not needed anymore since there are no articles to use it :) Chamal ^talk 12:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_21&action=edit&section=T-3[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 Former Golf Tournament

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Former Golf Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template redundant to an improved Template:Infobox Golf Tournament, and is now unused. bigissue (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used, replaced by a better version, so delete. Chamal ^talk 12:06, 22 November 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:External link

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no benefit to using a template to mask Wiki-markup. In fact, template is it more complicated than using Wiki-markup. Currently used on just four articles. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - can't see any good reason for this template. Terraxos (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely redundant to the shorter wiki markup, with worse default behavior. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant template, standard wiki markup is easier. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete This seems to have no utility at all. Oren0 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 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:NAIA Football Conferences

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 (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NAIA Football Conferences (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It was recreated into the Template:NAIA Conferences template. Moonraker0022 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - new template is much nicer. good work. --Geologik (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Changing my vote to keep. All existing conference templates currently match, ex: {{NCAA FBS Conferences}}, {{NCAA FCS Conferences}}, {{NCAA DII Conferences}} and {{NCAA DIII Conferences}} as seen at the bottom of the College football article. These are stand alone football conference templates and I think they should stay that way. Deleting the {{NAIA Football Conferences}} template and replacing it with the new one would look decidingly out of place. The new template looks great, but not in the context of the current football templates. --Geologik (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to admit that on the surface it makes sense. However, there is at least one conference in the NAIA that is exclusive to football--the Mid-States Football Association and I have reason to believe that there may be more. The elimination of the football only template may prove to become very clumsy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Two, three if you count Independents, MSFA and the Central States Football League are football only. But many of those schools have dual "citizenship" with other conferences. Such as Southern Nazarene University is also in the CSFL and the Sooner Athletic Conference (for all other sports other than football). It was designed so say you looking for football want to quickly jump to see other sports those conference links would be there. That's the intended purpose. Consolidation and efficiency.Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are apparently football-only conferences and therefore a separate list is warranted. Oren0 (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the keeps above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given above. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:30, 25 November 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.