Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2 May 4 >

May 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 Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject My Chemical Romance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WikiProject My Chemical Romance is defunct and has been transformed into a task force of WikiProject Emo (see WP:MCR). {{WikiProject Emo}} now contains support for the task force. All uses of {{WikiProject My Chemical Romance}} in the mainspace have been replaced with the the task force parameter in {{WikiProject Emo}}, so the old MCR project template is now completely deprecated. I thought this was an easy speedy G6, and tagged it as such, but for some reason Closedmouth and SoWhy both declined speedy, even though all of the other templates and subpages of the old MCR project have been G6 speedied without any issue. IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 3 May 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 --Icewedge (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Number three for today, and probably more controversial than the other two. Discussion at WT:HOCKEY#Other_templates has led to some agreement that templates such as this are little more than clutter, as it is hardly notable or relevant to Dion Phaneuf's article that Al MacInnis was drafted 22 years earlier, for example. It is notable that he was a first round pick, however, and there has been support for the WP:NAVBOX essay's suggestion that such templates should be replaced with succession boxes. I have done that in this case, and and now putting this template up for deletion as a test case, as ultimately, it is my intention to replace all draft pick and coach templates with succession boxes per this style. Basically, as a result of this change, this template is unsused, and not likely to be reused. Resolute 17:10, 3 May 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 --Alexf(talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EA-NHL-series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar reasons as the first overall draft pick template below. Redundant to the succession boxes in some articles, but really, I can't find any reason why this is even notable or defining for an individual player. It would be like creating templates and succession boxes for each player who was card #1 in any given year's trading card set. Not to mention that the EA Sports series isn't the only hockey/sports game on the market, and creating templates/succession boxes for each would be completely ridiculous. Resolute 16:01, 3 May 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 --Alexf(talk) 01:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL FirstOverallDraftPicks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per WP:EMBED, WP:NAVBOX and discussion at WT:HOCKEY#Other_templates. Other first overall draft picks are not relevant to each individual's biography, nor are these other players defining. The template is also redundant to the succession box on each article that points to List of first overall NHL draft picks. Resolute 15:33, 3 May 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 Keep Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is redundant to a better-designed existing template - {{Original research}}. Snappy (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP This template was intended to make it clear what the problem was, the {{Original research}} was too generic and some editors failed to understand the need for both inclusion and exclusion critera. The {{Original research}} was used on soccer articles, and was met with little success, however the {{famous players}} template in which the problems were explicityly stated was significantly more succesful, a template on which this one was based. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:54, 3 May 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 --Alexf(talk) 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polo De Billion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely redlinks, not usefully employed anywhere. - Vianello (Talk) 02:28, 3 May 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 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Numbers rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{NumberTalk}} does the job better. Wikiproject doesn't seem to rate articles. Moreover, Numbers rating uses old coding. NumberTalk uses standarised wiki code. If rating is needed NumberTalk can be modified to do that. Numbers rating is now orphan as well. Magioladitis (talk) 01:33, 3 May 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.