Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6

[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. Happymelon 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template as all but the first novel were merged months ago to the series article. As such, only has three unique links, which doesn't require a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:26, 6 March 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.
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).

The result of the discussion was: keep. — Aitias // discussion 11:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I find this bewildering. This template performs the function of the history tab. Now I have to be missing something here. I'd love to say it was "redundant to a better designed/ implemented template", but it's redundant to a function of Mediawiki software! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Er, ok. But useful in what way? Convince me. Please. I know that sounds patronising but I know no other way of asking than being direct, so my apologies if I am just "not getting it". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I created the template for the ability to conveniently create a link to the history of a page and save editors time when they need to create a page history link. -- IRP 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't redundant to the page history tab; it's intended to link to some other page's history without an extra click or the need to remember the syntax. It could use improvement (in particular, a shorter name), but it's not redundant. Gavia immer (talk) 03:57, 7 March 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).
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. Happymelon 16:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgia NRHP date for lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete A template not employed by any article, read entire edit history, i can't figure out the usage . Matthew_hk tc 22:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also Template:New York NRHP date for lists. Matthew_hk tc 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't know if because it uses a reference at the end, it has to be subst: to be used, and perhaps might have been added in a number of articles like that? ch10 · 07:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template, as well as others like it for other states, used to be used to show the date of when the state's National Register of Historic Places lists were updated as the National Park Service puts out it weekly listings update. Sometimes the state would be forgotten and wouldn't be updated for a long time. The individual templates were combined into {{NRHP date for lists}} to make it easier to keep track of the dates. I have a list of all the other templates and was going to eventually list them all for deletion. --​​​​D.B.talkcontribs 04:14, 12 March 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.
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 withdrawn by nominator. Acalamari 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User:Stifle/deletionhelp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created during another discussion to prove a WP:POINT. Whereas the subject of the other discussion is used to improve content and is not intended to gain votes in AfDs, this template (an apples and oranges comparison) suggests the opposite. As even the creator acknowledges it would be deleted if used, it serves no real purpose that benefits our project. Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any such template. If the user subpage is what you want deleted, WP:MFD is over there ===>. Request speedy closure, since this discussion is in the wrong place. Deor (talk) 17:43, 6 March 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.
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. — Aitias // discussion 11:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know WikiProject banners have their advantages, but only when there is some sanity in their placement. Are we to place this template on the talk page of each and every redirect in the mainspace? All four million of them? Unlike most project banners, this one genuinely is completely useless. The WikiProject is also inactive, but that's another matter. Happymelon 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a little much. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inactive project and a fairly useless template, particularly for a project that will never have article assessments or the like to be indicated in such a banner. Just doesn't seem very useful at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Collectonian. Versus22 talk 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with the above. ch10 · 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Collectonian --78.150.206.80 (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well intentioned, but pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence Whenever I convert an article into a redirect, I replace whatever project tags were on the talk page with this one. But I suppose deleting or blanking such a talk page if it was nothing but project tags would serve the same purpose... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – All templates, even ones that are WikiProject banners, should serve a function that benefits the encyclopedia; this template, though well-intentioned, fails to do that and can actually be distracting—have you ever clicked on the talk page of a redirect and found only this template...? –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seeing as this will be deleted, can we ban all WikiProject templates from redirects? I've seen too many MILHIST-tagged redirects that should not be tagged (only the article it redirects to should be tagged, IMHO). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in WP:AFC we tag redirects on the talk page. The reason is that these are not so trivial as some other redirects. They are formally requested, then assessed as to being suitable and then created. The redirects then 'belong' to the WP:AFC project. If there are any issues with the redirect, then it should be going back to the project, as the anonymous contributors will not have the visibility themselves, and instead the project workers have to take care of any issue, (perhaps deletion, article moving, comments from others). In the case of this one, if there is a talk page history the talk page should be kept, particularly if it was once for an article. The banner also promotes the project and is harmless to WP. I would request Keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 12 March 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.
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. — Aitias // discussion 11:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John Morrison and The Miz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • I'm nominating the tamplate for deletion because I don't see a point in having it as both John Morrison and The Miz have information about their team and the template doesn't provide any easier navigation, so there's really no point in having it. BlackManta 11:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is no need for it, a duo is not that hard to navigate between when both are mentioned in their respective articles.--RUCӨ 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A navbox should provide navigational value beyond that which can be had through a "See also" section or prominent links in the text of articles, and this template fails that standard since the articles are already heavily interlinked (i.e. each one contains at least one highly prominent link to all the others). –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just redundant. It should be noted there is quite a lot of these tiny wrestling navboxes (for teams and even some stables), see: Category:Professional wrestling navigational boxes. Apparently I've been told it's a requirement for featured articles to have a navbox. If that's indeed the case, I find that pretty pointless. When people view a tag team article: it's not hard to find the links for both wrestlers' articles. A template navbox with only a few items is a waste of space. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 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.
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. Happymelon 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hardy Boyz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • I'm nominating the tamplate for deletion because I don't see a point in having it as both Matt and Jeff Hardy's articles have extensive information about The Hardy Boyz as well as Amy Dumas' page also has information about the Hardyz, the template doesn't provide any easy navigation and isn't needed. BlackManta 11:04, 6 March 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.