Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 12

< October 11	October 13 >

October 12

Template:Football Clubs in Cheshire

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. Pagra shtak 14:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football Clubs in Cheshire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A seemingly arbitrary template; there is no criteria for inclusion beyond being in Cheshire (and there are probably thousands of football clubs in the county). Unclear why this is necessary. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this stays, we would have similar templates for every county/city in the UK, followed by the rest of the world. Furthermore, the template does not appear to be used on any of the articles included in it. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - fchd (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Sport in Cheshire is more than sufficient. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:25, 13 October 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:Cquote

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. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was just brought up at a Featured article candidacy, but curly quotes violate the Manual of Style. Redundant with other quote templates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't violate the MOS. Wikipedia:MOS#Quotation marks says there are two options, and merely recommends typewriter quotes. But the latter would look extra stupid in this template which emphasizes this typographic element. Nevertheless, the formatting violates the MOS regarding block quotations, which shouldn't have quotation marks (so the template should have a background image instead of literal quotation mark characters), we have too many such presentational templates, and the cartoony “blog” look doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. So I vote to delete. —Michael Z. 2008-10-12 16:18 z

Speedy keep - We've been here before.--Qyd (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A TfD from almost two years ago means consensus can change... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concerns raised then (regarding accessibility) have been addressed, while the appearance and MOS compliancy (point raised here) has not changed. Furthermore, this is a widely used template, the tfd message defaces thousands of pages, all the more reason to speedy . Speedier even than wait for WP:SNOW. --Qyd (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - With any due respect, the fact that there are tfd messages on pages where the template is used is a crappy (and invalid) reason to speedy keep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correct you are, it's not a valid reason to speedy keep. But it is a common sense reason to not propose deletion in the first place. With respect. --Qyd (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to another appropriate quote template. If the TFD message is appearing on other pages, then noinclude it. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Keep very widely used, often appropriately Excessive use can be dealt with by editing. I agree with the reason given to speedy keep this. DGG (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion would break usage on non-article pages. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...So? Once again, I'm not sure how "deleting it will take time" is grounds for keeping it. I'd be happy to go and fix the important instances where it breaks in the WP-space. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:01, 15 October 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:User Roma Antica

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 Speedy delete by an admin per author's request. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. (Non-admin closure). MrZaius^talk 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Roma Antica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Much like the Ancient Rome templates already in existence. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep this Template. I have reviewed the other Templates dealing with Rome and Ancient Rome, and request this template be kept as different in interest and intent. It's purpose is to reflect a keen interest in Latinity and it's history. Also, let me mention, I wasn't able to finish the Template before you have already requested it's deletion. Thanks. Gaston200 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I don't see how deleting this template will help anyone or improve Wikipedia in any way. If people want to use that particular template on their user pages, why not? Also, userboxes should be listed at WP:MFD, not WP:TFD. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:36, 13 October 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:Thailand Hospitals

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. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thailand Hospitals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox template provides absolutely no advantage over the existing category. As it is virtually impossible to include all 1,604 Thai hospitals (see http://www.rajavejubol.com/board/index.php?topic=10.0 ) in the template, this template will only serve as a reflection of the category and will require constant effort in updating when new articles are created, likely resulting in out-of-datedness. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates recommends against the use of navigation templates in this situation. Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a category is more appropriate than a navigational template here. Terraxos (talk) 01:23, 19 October 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:Utah college radio

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. Pagra shtak 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utah college radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary navbox template, includes only a single link Rtphokie (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete template for a single link?! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my explanation here (which Utah is included). User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 06:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been populated. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, the template is now rather larger and more useful, so no reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 18 October 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.