Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

Template:Polish Football Championship winners

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) 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polish Football Championship winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Polish Football League Cup winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Polish Football Super Cup winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navigation tool, per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 24#Template:Polish Football Cup winners. 47625kam (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:32, 24 September 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) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - previous consensus has been that these templates aren't really very useful (and can lead to some team articles getting cluttered with templates at the bottom). A succession box is better in most cases. Robofish (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robofish. Good point about succession boxes. I forget about those sometimes. --RL0919 (talk) 00:14, 26 September 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:2010 US Census

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) 22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 US Census (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. And per WP:NODISCLAIMERS unnecessary. Redundant with {{Update}} and {{Out of date}}. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the two templates mentioned above seem preferable to this one, which will only be used for a limited time anyway. Robofish (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessarily specific variant of the two templates mentioned in the nom. --RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too specific, redundant, and unnecessary per wp:nodisclaimers. --mwilso24 (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:33, 25 September 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:Family Matters cast

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) 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Matters cast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant and not in use any more after merge into {{Family Matters}}. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to existing template. Robofish (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 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:Hainan

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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely identical with Template:County-level divisions of Hainan, which has the better name. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it's a perfectly reasonable name for a redirect, and you could have WP:BOLDly redirected it, or even merged it the other way. Aside from which, doesn't WP:GFDL require keeping it for editor contribution history? Since "Hainan" is the much older template... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GFDL requires to mention that a merge has taken place if you merge two pages. I don't know for sure about what you say, but I think there is no connection. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect one of these templates to the other - actually, I would suggest redirecting the other template to this one, as it has the much simpler name. It doesn't really matter which way though, as long as we end up with one template instead of two identical ones. Robofish (talk) 13:43, 25 September 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:Japanese Formula 2000/Japanese Formula Two years

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) 18:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese Formula 2000/Japanese Formula Two years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant and not in use after merge into Template:Formula Nippon years. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to existing template. Robofish (talk) 13:41, 25 September 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:Sikhism by country/temp

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) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sikhism by country/temp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was originally designed to be used on Sikhism by country. It is not in use, nor has it been edited in over a year. On top of that, it is unfit for use on Sikhism by country, because it enumerates only a limited number of countries. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect, and merge with Template:Sikhism.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphaned and redundant to Sikhism by country. (To the comment above: 'Delete and merge' isn't a coherent proposal, as if a page is deleted, it can't be merged.) Robofish (talk) 13:41, 25 September 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:MotoGP results legend

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) 17:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MotoGP results legend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I closed a merge discussion with Template:Motorsport driver results legend as merge. These templates are almost identical. I finished the merge by replacing all instances of this template, so it is not in use any more. Recommend for deletion as almost identical with and therefore redundant to Template:Motorsport driver results legend. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why delete this template without even a discussion? Nobody at the Motorcycle racing Wikiproject was notified of this, nor of the previous discussion about the merger. Asendoh (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The merge template was added a month and a half ago. I don't know how come that nobody saw fit to inform this most relevant WikiProject. Changing the templates was a trivial step, because they are almost completely the same. Is there something I overlooked? Debresser (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to existing template. Robofish (talk) 13:39, 25 September 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:Arbsig

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) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete unwanted, not needed. --Tznkai (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relist after I erroneously made an MfD here. Original author is currently blocked, by myself, but he can be reached via talk page and I believe has given his reasoning for the template there.--Tznkai (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was made a few days ago, and has nothing to do with current discussions. Its purpose is to give freedom to Arbcom members - allowing them to work in the wild in an official capacity, instead of being stuck in Committee, on IRC, or private lists. Acting in an official or semi-official capacity naturally means being upfront about who they are and to what degree their actions are motivated by or based in Arbcom concepts. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Posted for Steve by lifebaka++ at 00:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - unused, and doesn't appear to represent any existing policy. Arbitrators sign their comments just like all other users, not with a special template. Robofish (talk) 13:38, 25 September 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:Charmed Companions

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 userfy and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charmed Companions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We already have {{Charmed}}. This is unneccessary. If not deleted at least it has to be substed in the series' main page and not be in every article. Magioladitis (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate articles unlisted into {{Charmed}}, then delete.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 22:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanquish. Finally, I get what I asked for! I would appreciate something like this on a fansite, but it is a bit much for even the main article here. To include it in every character article is unnecessary clutter. Subst it into the main article if the editors there want it, add any relevant articles to {{Charmed}} if they aren't there already, and delete this demonic template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, of course I say "keep", since I have put so much work into improving this template. Another editor tagged this template for deletion about a month ago, and no consensus to delete was reached then. Hopefully the same will happen again this time. I go into detail on the template's Talk page about why this is a very important navigational aid to readers. It has a different focus than the {{Charmed}} template, and it readily gives readers information about the main characters that they would otherwise have to "hunt" for. Thank you for your consideration in this matter!

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is really well made table. But I don't think it should in every character's artcile. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Magioladitis, both for the original creator, Olympic god, and myself! Not all of the characters have their own articles. Many, like Dex and Drake, have just brief listings on the List of Charmed characters page. And on that page there are many other characters that are not linked to by this template. And there are some, for example Barbas, whom I'm still considering adding to the template, but haven't decided yet. So Barbas does not yet have this template on his page. The only character pages that would have this template are the ones that are linked to by the template. Don't you think that it's appropriate to do this? Isn't it correct to place the template at the very least on the article pages that it links to? Thank you again for your compliment!

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 11:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above. We can have this table (as a table not as template) in the series main article to help readers understand the connection between the characters. As a navbox is inappropriate and we already have one for the whole series. There is much work in this template and I don't want it to get deleted but we have to find a way to use it properly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, Magioladitis, since you are the editor who started this process, can we now end this Tfd and take it to the template's talk page?

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is too much of an in-universe, 'fannish' template, suitable for a fansite but not for a general encyclopedia. It also raises issues with original research - what is a 'Companion' in Charmed? Does the show ever use the term? This might be OK as a box on the Charmed article, but I'm afraid it's inappropriate as a navbox. Robofish (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would work better as a table at List of Charmed characters or appropriate subarticle or at a dedicated wiki. Could be userfied as a temporary home. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. This template is just bizarre. I outlined problems with it on a talk page ages ago when I thought it qualified for speedy. Charmed "companions"? What?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and then delete Too much depth for a single television show. Author may want to find the appropriate Wikia site. Also, the color scheme is unpleasant.--Tznkai (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out). In an effort to save this template, which I consider useful and an improvement to every article it enhances, I have tried to meet some of the objections above. The color scheme has been changed and is now, hopefully, more pleasant than before. Also, I've improved the title of the template. Some editors objected to the usage of the term "companions", so I converted that to "friends and foes". That will also allow timelines for some of the more notable demons such as Barbas and The Source. Please keep in mind that these timelines provide information to general readers about the notable friends and enemies that cannot be found anywhere else in such a focused format. Thanks to you all for your helpful suggestions to improve this template gateway for readers!
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 06:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and delete as basically redundant to {{Charmed}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:17, 1 October 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:The Riches season 1

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) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Riches season 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan. Consists only of redirects to the same article. Magioladitis (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty useless, as it consists solely of redirects. Redundant to List of The Riches episodes. Robofish (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough distinct articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 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:David Winters Producer

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) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Winters Producer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate. We don't link articles because they had the same producer. Also note the number of non-link entries on this one. Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if this was a good idea, it's already done better on {{David Winters}}, which only lists selected bluelinked entries. The fact that the article states 'Winters has directed and produced over 200 television series, specials, and films....' makes me think this one could get out of hand very quickly. Robofish (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems more suitable for a category than a template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created it thinking it was a terrific idea. But also see differently now that I am a more mature editor. It is easy, as a neophyte to get over enthusiastic about things that can be done. I am surprised it lasted this long. Someone, redid the selected works and did a terrific job. When I was documenting the works of Winters, there was what I felt, a non-neutral point of view, campaign against the subject by an editor that was also fairly new, but felt that Winters did not warrant even an article. So in my documentation project to provide evidence for notability, I admittedly was over enthusiastic in the creation of this template. K3vin (talk) 23:09, 30 September 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:Achivearticle

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) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is orphan. No surprice because it has a typo! {{Archive}} (with r!) does the job. Magioladitis (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely redundant to existing template. Robofish (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, used only on two pages in the creator's userspace, and obviously a typo for the name. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 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.