Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 17

< November 16	November 18 >

November 17

Template:SPI fork

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SPI fork (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

temporary notice template, no longer any transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Unused. -- œ ^™ 05:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, and presumably not needed. Robofish (talk) 19:08, 21 November 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:OtherusesSubtopicAlias

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a minor variant of {{OtherusesAlias}}, which was deleted following this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons discussed in TfD for {{OtherusesAlias}}. --RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, this is one of the few (2?) hatnote templates in all of WP that deals with article sections that need disambiguation. All other hatnotes deal with the article as a whole, not individual sections. Hard to see how this isn't needed. Variation as a reason to delete? That's the digital version of guilt by association. The arguments for this proposal should stand on their own. Dovid (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even less useful than {{OtherusesAlias}}. As I said for that template, hatnotes aren't needed for this specific purpose, and existing ones are sufficient for other purposes. Robofish (talk) 19:06, 21 November 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:Infobox Language/Coptic

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Language/Coptic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This subtemplate was used only on Coptic language, where I replaced it with {{contains Coptic text}}, which is the usual way of dealing with this. Undocumented. Svick (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be better as a group nom for all of the {{infobox Language}} "contains..." sub-templates? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and redundant to {{Contains Coptic text}}. (Which is barely used itself; maybe we should be working on a generic "Contains language" template" that could take over for several of the less-used "contains" templates?). --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what {{SpecialChars}} (which {{Contains Coptic text}} is subclassed to) is. The reason for the subclasses is to point to the specific help page for the font / workaround required to get the article to display correctly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, redundant to better template. Robofish (talk) 19:04, 21 November 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:Toronto Blue Jays first round draft choices

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 withrdrawn (?) JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toronto Blue Jays first round draft choices (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Prior consensus has determined that there was no rationale behind keeping these first-round draft pick and positional-style templates unless they were linked to an appropriate "main" article (a la List of Philadelphia Phillies first round draft picks and its navbox). I certainly wouldn't have a problem if such an article existed for the Toronto draft picks, but it currently doesn't, thus the deletion proposal. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, It might take a while, so please make sure it doesnt get deleted beforehand. BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^{(TALK|JAYS)17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

If you need a hand, let me know; for the moment, it doesn't need to be like the Phillies draft pick list. Even a bulleted text list would be preferable to nothing at all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it together (List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks), all I need to know is if i need External links to be the source for the article, i just used wikipedia, and is the way it is currently set up OK, or does it need a different set up. Thanks. BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^{(TALK|JAYS)19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

I added a link to Baseball-Reference for you, ~~but it doesn't seem to match up~~; make sure that you verify the list against the source. I also added an external link and the template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks so much. Anything else to keep it from deletion BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I matched it up to the refrence, added the years to the template, anything else? BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say keep on the basis of the existence of the page, but I suggest you look at KV5's (List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks and Template:Philadelphia Phillies 1st round) and mine (List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks and Template:New York Yankees 1st round) for guidance. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I will say keep because I did make the main page and sourced it, and i gave it my all to keep it. BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 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:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per previous discussion here, not a notable team The-Pope (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus established at previous discussion. -- œ ^™ 10:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per what I've said before. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there is a consensus. MetroFooty (talk) 09:39, 21 November 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:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per previous discussion here, not a notable team The-Pope (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus established at previous discussion. -- œ ^™ 10:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per what I've said before. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there is a consensus. MetroFooty (talk) 09:39, 21 November 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:Nnbilateral

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a possibly useful template that I created a while back, but it hasn't really been used. There is a proposal for a bilateral relations notability guideline, which could mean this template is needed. But there is also {{notability}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessarily specific variant of {{Notability}}. There is no special notability guideline to link to for this topic, and if we start making topic-specific variants of {{Notability}} when there are not special guidelines for the topic, there could be thousands of these. --RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there aren't any specific guidelines for bilateral relations. Generic notability templates should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 19:03, 21 November 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:EduCARE India

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. Creator indef blocked. -- œ ^™ 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EduCARE India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No content. Infobox template referred does not exist. Orphan. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Broke, unused and abandoned (no talk, no meaningful links, no edits since it was created). --RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 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:Historic regions of northern india

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historic regions of northern india (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Zero bytes. Orphan. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. A template with subjective and ill defined subject matter.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and apparently abandoned. --RL0919 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per incorrect lower-case i in India. :P -- œ ^™ 05:16, 21 November 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:Wide Area Networks in India

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wide Area Networks in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no content in this template. Orphaned template. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unused, no content. Robofish (talk) 19:01, 21 November 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:Infobox MSingh cabinet

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MSingh cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Not likely to be used, when latest cabinet info is the one that is used in articles. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, and doesn't seem particularly useful, when we have articles like First Manmohan Singh Cabinet. Robofish (talk) 19:01, 21 November 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:LS1952b-Sibasagar-North

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) 07:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LS1952b-Sibasagar-North (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. No value. Not likely to be used. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into an article on the by-election. --Soman (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned. Converting into an article would also be acceptable if anyone wants to do it. Robofish (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. About a year ago, tens of these templates were deleted (all starting with LS*). This somehow was missed. Also, in some of the cases, such deleted templates were in use on 1 page. It was decided to move the content into the article page and delete the template. If it was unused, template was deleted. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:41, 24 November 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:Allison Iraheta

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allison Iraheta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's simply too early for this. The only entries are a single and an album. Well the album isn't even out yet. It doesn't come out until early December. And outside of Chris Daughtry, the rate of success of fourth place finishers isn't exactly high on American Idol. Let's wait until she either releases me or becomes notable enough for this navbox. User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too early. GlassCobra 14:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough links available yet. No prejudice against recreating if/when there are more articles. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 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:Biju Janata Dal

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biju Janata Dal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox with no navigation Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and there is no content. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request not to delete. I created this template to be able to store the meta tags for this party that are then used in {{Infobox}} sections on various election results pages. Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Biju_Janata_Dal lists the subpages for this party, on similar lines to Congress subpages and BJP subpages I shall try to add some information & navigation to this template.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 09:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Aditya.krishnan.82 talk page item - his agreement that this template can be deleted, as the need was for only the other sub-items, like party colours, flags, etc. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed, as accepted by the creator. Robofish (talk) 18:58, 21 November 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:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Succession boxes are used for this instead. --RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and RL0919. Robofish (talk) 18:57, 21 November 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:Black Eyed Peas singles

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 merge. JPG-GR (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black Eyed Peas singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be redundant to {{Black Eyed Peas}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest to make to include it in {{Black Eyed Peas}}, having kept formatting. Really, the list of singles in {{Black Eyed Peas}} too big.--Andrey! 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into {{Black Eyed Peas}} since they are clearly redundant. There are a couple of singles listed that aren't on the broader template. As navboxes go, {{Black Eyed Peas}} isn't excessively large, so a couple more links shouldn't be a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 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:Jada

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) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor band, not enough links to justify having a template. GlassCobra 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the last two links are incidental; there isn't enough real content here to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 18:56, 21 November 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.