Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 27

< August 26	August 28 >

August 27

Template:Infobox LIRR

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) 06:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox LIRR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, made redundant by the "style" parameter in {{Infobox station}}. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Proposed for speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by either process, but it's still redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 28 August 2010 (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:Motorsport in the UK

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 September 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia: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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Motorsport in the UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this list is in danger of becoming too big for its own good considering the inclusion of the many club series that will likely to serve as support races to some major series, if not club series. Not to mention that historics bring in more spectators than a number of international series can, even any VSCC meetings is capable of bringing in more spactators than a Superleague Formula and FIA F2 (that is both held in the UK) can. Also a number of notable motorsport discipline are missing from this list (sprint, rallycross, motorcross, supercross, autocross, drag racing or even powerboats, or even the many varieties of rallying), club or national, whatever. If we were to include them all, then this list will become too unwieldly for its own good. Since motorsport series comes and goes in the UK, there is many older series that is not accounted in this template, if included, that will make it even more unwieldly.

I will say that if we were to list every race series and disciplines in the UK, then this list will become too big for its own good, if we were to restrict it to just professional series, then we all will be scratching our heads and think how do we define professional, do we define it by licensing requirement, media coverages. The Superleague and many pro series like I say although it may have TV coverages, it will never bring in as many spectators as a number of historic events are capable of as the UK is highly regarded for such considering it is the home of the two Goodwoods. If we were to exclude some disciplines, then why do we bother with this list in the first place. Therefore this is my reason for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Donnie Park (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep it as a good quick link to most major motorsport in UK however maybe re edit it to include only active, major motorsport series/events— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mharris99 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 August 2010

So, its the user who created this template saying its a good quick link to most major motorsport in UK. Well first, what do you mean by major series/events, you have forgotten to include all the motorcycle speedway series there, not to mention all the big name historics, also you have forgot to mention the Superkart series that was hugely popular in the 1980s, also you have forgot to include the many mini oval racing series, some popular in its early heydays. Lets put it this way, with your claim of whatever is major I can say this, whatever is seen as major to some is considered to be Mickey Mouse to others. Your consideration that we should include only active, major motorsport series/events still will do nothing to stop it from being cluttered, not to mention unmanageable, also have you attended all these events you have listed, if so, how do you know its a major series other than some of those that obviously are (BTCC, BSB). Now do you have a better reason than what you have said. Donnie Park (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then edit the template to show only the events at the top of the UK motorsport pyrimid (e.g. British F3 / BTCC / British GT etc) and the classes leading directly to that series where applicable along with major international championships (dont argue again what major means because you can just use common sense for international motorsport). Mharris99 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to be really honest with you, I don't think I will ever agree with your decision to show those at top of the "pyrimid and the classes leading directly to that series along with major international championships", why, like some motorsport enthusiasts I know, they will tell you there is too many series out there in the UK, they do nothing but just come and go. I know you want your template saving, but your words will never reverse my decision for a deletion considering this template is like having a template consisting of all the British football leagues out there consisting of all those from all four parts of the country including all the minor leagues, at least you know the point I am making. Donnie Park (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (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:Unit length range

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) 06:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit length range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused conversion template, part of a wad of cruft around {{geobox}} which desperately needs to be cleaned up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:19, 28 August 2010 (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:Florida State Seminoles seasons

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) 06:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Florida State Seminoles seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, info here redundant to info contained in Template:Florida State Seminoles Football, and has not been modified since 17 May 2009. EmanWilm (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JJ98 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Proposed for speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by either process, but it's still redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 28 August 2010 (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.