Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 27

< August 26	August 28 >

August 27

Template:Musha Gundam Navi

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musha Gundam Navi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Super Deformed Gundam and a demonstration of why collapsed, hardcoded sidebars generally aren't a good idea. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Yeah, that does NOT behave well when there's anything underneath it. Such as, say, an infobox or actual, yanno, text. Fortunately, we have an alternative format. Switch all instances to Template:Super Deformed Gundam (placed at the bottom of the article) and delete, yo. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - {{Super Deformed Gundam}} can completely replace this template. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said redundant and something botched in term of usability. --KrebMarkt 21:58, 28 August 2009 (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:In

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) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current purpose of this template is to generate whitespace, with a result which appears to be browser dependent and produce the same appearance as other whitespace templates like {{spaces}}. Until very recently, the template was used to create the "in" math symbol, $\in$ . As far as I can tell there was no consensus to change this template's function, although simply creating the $\in$ symbol is questionable as well. The template has very few transclusions and could be easily substituted before deletion. In fact, the recent change to the template broke at least one usage in a talk page archive (see here). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to previous function' since the new function is useless and breaks existing usage. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2009 (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:EHS Institute

Template:EHS Institute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 speedy deleted upon author request. JamieS93 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only of use in one article, where it already exists as a simple infobox, no need for a template. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion, so I've tagged it as a G7. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (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:NFLGMs

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 no consensus.. JPG-GR (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template requires original research for more than half its entries. A number of NFL teams do not have someone with the title of "General Manager," and therefore adding any other person to this template would be OR. For example, the editor added Nick Caserio as the Patriots' GM; his title is "Director of Player Personnel." He is not the team's general manager - many would argue Bill Belichick is, but still that is OR. In short, the template requires way too much original research in order to be effective. See List of current National Football League staffs for a good picture of how much original research is required here. Pats1 ^T/C 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the baseball equivalent template, this is supposed to be the person who "acts" as the GM. For example, Andrew Friedman of the Tampa Bay Rays acts as "General Manager" even though his official title is Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations. I would say we should improve the article but not delete it. After all, there is one for coaches and owners of NFL teams and even coordinators.--Levineps (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every team has a head coach, cut and dried. Almost every team has coordinators for each side of the ball, without any other titles. Almost every team has an owner or ownership group. But only a dozen or so teams actually have a general manager with that exact title; most others (like the Patriots) have a gruop of people who act as a general manager, but defining that group - or as you mentioned a person (like Kevin Colbert as a "general manager" violates original research without exception. Pats1 ^T/C 14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say maybe as a compromise for teams that don't have an "official" GM, let's leave them blank. I would prefer not but feel that might be fair.--Levineps (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the navbox would be blank then, defeating its purpose. Pats1 ^T/C 14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so should the baseball template be eliminated?, I think having the equivalent position is good enough. Yes, the GM might be a less defined position with a less defined title, but it is still essential for each team to have--Levineps (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up all the teams, the following teams have GM with the official titles (according to the team websites): Jeff Ireland (Miami), Mike Tannenbaum (New York Jets), Ozzie Newsome (Baltimore), George Kokinis (Cleveland), Rick Smith (Houston), Gene Smith (Jacksonville), Mike Reinfeldt (Tennessee), Brian Xanders (Denver), Scott Pioli (Kansas City), A. J. Smith (San Diego), Jerry Jones (Dallas), Jerry Reese, (New York Giants), Tom Heckert, (Philadelphia), Jerry Angelo (Chicago), Martin Mayhew (Detroit), Ted Thompson (Green Bay), Thomas Dimitroff (Atlanta), Marty Hurney (Carolina), Mickey Loomis (New Orleans), Mark Dominik (Tampa Bay), Rod Graves (Arizona), Billy Devaney (St. Louis), Scot McCloughan (San Francisco), Tim Ruskell (Seattle). Thats's 24 out of the 32 teams, Pats!--Levineps (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 27 August 2009 (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.