Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 3
March 3
[edit]- 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) 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Stargateportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Is redundant to {{portal|Stargate|Stargate-color.png}}, currently not in use anyway since the portal was archived to project space after an MfD. – sgeureka t•c 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC) – sgeureka t•c 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom – redundant to {{portal}}. Having a separate "see also" template for each portal is equivalent to having a separate template for each parameter of {{cleanup}}. It's better to use a single template with a few parameters than many individual coded versions of a single template. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- G8 since related portal was essentially deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:13, 9 March 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.
- 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 all --Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Also nominated are:
- Template:Stargate Media Dates/Film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate Media Dates/The Ark of Truth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate Media Dates/Continuum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate Blu-Ray Dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate Blu-Ray Dates/Atlantis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate Blu-Ray Dates/SG1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate Blu-Ray Dates/Universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate DVD Dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate DVD Dates/Atlantis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate DVD Dates/SG1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Stargate DVD Dates/Universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Wikipedia doesn't need a template for very every kind of release form for every type of merchandise. Stargate SG-1#Home release and Stargate Atlantis#Home release can do the job just fine per the KISS principle, and Stargate Universe won't have any DVDs released before 2010 anyway. If need be, the release-date tables can also be copied from the main article to List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of Stargate Atlantis episodes, but that doesn't require the templates to exist. – sgeureka t•c 12:16, 3 March 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.
- 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 as it serves no purpose Woody (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Liverpool F.C. Reserves season 2008-09 game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Basically empty template, nothing appears to link to it, it appears to link to nothing, seems to serve no purpose. ClubOranjeT 10:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. A redundant template which could conceivably serve no useful purpose. I would imagine that if this were completed, it would just be a table of results and would just be replicating the table at Liverpool_F.C._season_2008-09#Match_results_2. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 21:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant King of the North East 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - pointless, redundant, out-of-date template which serves little purpose on any potential page anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DeMoN2009 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:12, 7 March 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.
- 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. SoWhy 09:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary template for only three articles already well connected through usual in-article links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. With only three links and little scope for expansion in the near future, there's no need for this template right now. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:35, 3 March 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.
Golf tournament winners navboxes
[edit]- 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 all Editors in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf seem to endorse deletion as well. --Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Template:WGC-Match Play (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WGC-Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WGC-Invitational (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:The Tour Championship champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:The Players Championship champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:The Players Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:The Player Championship champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
As per discussion at WP:GOLF, tournament winners navboxes should be limited to the majors to avoid excessive clutter, and as such these navboxes will remain unused. wjematherbigissue 02:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. As per above, and no matter how important in the golfing world a tournament may be, majors matter most. Supertigerman (talk) 03:46, 11 March 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.