Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 2

< August 1	August 3 >

August 2

Template:Mario & Sonic

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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Mario & Sonic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template is not needed as their are only 2 possible entries for it, both games obviously mention the other already (which eliminates the need for this template anyways). TJ Spyke 21:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, Mario and Sonic could still make more games togheter.You shouldn't think that Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games will be the only Mario & Sonic games. --User:Gab_95 Talk
  • See WP:CRYSTALBALL. No future games have been announced and you can't predict that there will be. TJ Spyke 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not a necessary template as there are only 2 games at the moment. Both of the series have the games listed in their representative templates. Magiciandude (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the "only two games" argument. If more games are released we'll recreate , but at the moment two articles can't really merit their own template. GrooveDog (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing prevents recreation if more games are created. We don't create templates pre-emptively for future use. Jafeluv (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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:Cavalera Conspiracy

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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cavalera Conspiracy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this template is unnecessary, there few related articles, and all the links are present in the text. Please consider reading WP:NAVBOX. Cannibaloki 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, can be completely recreated using navboxes. --King ♣ Talk 15:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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:Gate Keepers

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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Gate Keepers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The three characters blue-linked in the template have been merged/redirected to the main article. Could be converted to a series article, but with only two articles at this time, it is a bit premature. Farix (Talk) 01:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, write the article first.--Cannibaloki 01:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No need for that one as not enough article plus all those separate characters articles are not notable and have been changed into redirect. So this template has no more purpose at all. --KrebMarkt 13:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary navigation template since there's only one article to navigate. Jafeluv (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, too few articles to justify a separate navbox. Even with an episode list, I doubt a navbox would really be necessary. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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.