Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

April 7

Template:Satchel

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) 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

With only one article to navigate too - this Navbox serves no useful function. memphisto 16:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template is unjustified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wonder if nom (and "per nom" !voter) even looked at the template, as there are clearly six blue links including the title. Disregarding the red links (which should probably be removed), I think there is still enough content to barely be worth a navbox, and it may reasonably grow as new articles are written. The links are all related enough as well, so I think it falls just on the keep side of WP:CLN and WP:NAV criteria. — Bility (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It only navigates to one article - typically band members and related articles links should be ignored. And navboxes exist to aid navigation to existing (not potential) articles. memphisto 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can we say navboxes exist to aid navigation, yet not consider some of the links? It is obvious that any of the "ignorable" links act as navigation aids when not on their own pages. I've never heard of "typically ignored links" (can you link a discussion please?), and it's not going to stop a reader from clicking anything they want. I prefer to judge the template on its actual utility to readers. — Bility (talk)
Comment The fact that this template is only used in two articles Satchel (band) and Brad vs Satchel, illustrates why this navbox does not aid navigation. And with regards to "typically ignored links" please see the deleting admin's comment at User talk:Wikkitywack/Archive 1#Navbox_templates, the last time User:Wikkitywack templates were nominated for discussion. memphisto 09:09, 15 April 2011 (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:Pigeonhed

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) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

With only one article to navigate too - this Navbox serves no useful function. memphisto 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template is unjustified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my exact same rationale from Template:Satchel. — Bility (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It only navigates to one article - typically band members and related articles links should be ignored. And navboxes exist to aid navigation to existing (not potential) articles. memphisto 22:58, 14 April 2011 (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:Newspapers by continent (template)

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) 01:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newspapers by continent (template) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This would work far better as a category than as a tiny navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, linking to lists in this manner does not seem like a good idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2011 (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.

Penthouse Pets of the 1990s templates

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) 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1990 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1991 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1992 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1993 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1994 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1995 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1996 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1997 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1998 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These navboxes do not serve a useful function. They are mostly redlinks -- typically no more than three of the monthly links for a year are active, never more than half. Penthouse Pets are no longer presumed notable, as they were when the templates were created. Templates for the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s have already been deleted by consensus. Both categories and the List of Penthouse Pets article more effectively serve whatever purposes these templates were once used for.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Also, not every Penthouse Pet will get an article so it makes the template unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Likely to increase the creation of none-WP:N BLP articles. Mootros (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2011 (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:Allen Toussaint

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) 01:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allen Toussaint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two articles to navigate too - this Navbox serves no useful function. memphisto 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to userspace until more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (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:Bobby Charles

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) 01:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bobby Charles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two articles to navigate too - this Navbox serves no useful function. memphisto 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to userspace until more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (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:Paused

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) 01:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently only used in two articles (Ipswich Tower Ramparts bus station and List of bus routes in Huntingdon, St Ives and St Neots), which have borne the template continuously for eleven and nine weeks respectively. Message given by the template has no real point: not being actively edited is never a valid reason for deleting an article. Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is particularly describing that an unfinished article will be continued after some time. I know many adminstrators have the tendency to delete unfinished articles. I think it is a good template, and currently there isn't one similar to this one. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may well delete unfinished articles: but not specifically because they are unfinished. No article on Wikipedia is ever completely finished. Admins who do delete articles do so by application of the deletion policies (see WP:DEL#REASON and WP:CSD), which do not cover the "completeness" of an article per se except in the case of very short articles (see, for example, WP:CSD#A1). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. How likely is it for List of bus routes in Huntingdon, St Ives and St Neots to get deleted, without the Paused template on it? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say. The only way to be sure would be to put it up for deletion; and since I don't think it satisfies anything at WP:CSD, that would mean either a WP:PROD or a WP:AFD. Judging by recent AFDs of similar lists for Central Suffolk, Downham Market, Ely, Ipswich, Peterborough, Sheringham & Cromer, Stowmarket & Needham Market and Sudbury, (5 closed as "no consensus", 3 closed as "delete", but none closed as firm "keep") it could just survive, for now at least. Please note that the {{paused}} will not have a bearing on such a debate: deletions at AFD are prevented by posting a convincing argument to keep onto the relevant AFD page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't such articles be sandboxed? Like in Talk:article x/sandbox , Talk:article x/temp , Talk:article x/workpage or User:user whatevertheirnameis/Article x ? Otherwise, isn't it redundant with {{underconstruction}} ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template implies that the article is owned by a particular editor, which is contrary to WP rules and ethos.--Charles (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charles. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't imply anything. All it says it that whoever started it will finish it. Does it say please do not edit this or something similar? No. Everyone who wants to can edit it, but it is just trying to avoid deletion before it is even finished. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 65.x.x.x and Charles, If you want to draft an article in this manner then do it in you user space and only move it to article space when it is at a state of completeness that requires input from other editors. If it's for the re-editing of existing articles then use {{underconstruction}}. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few articles are ever completely "finished", but we do have some very basic standards expected of content in article-space. If a wikipedian is writing something which can't even get over that low hurdle on day one, then they shouldn't put it in article-space and pretend that it's an encyclopædia article. The template does give the impression that "OK, other people might think this should be deleted, but I have a really good reason for it not to be deleted, just let me have a couple more days..." which is unhelpful as this machine runs on consensus - if other people over at AfD can't think of a way to salvage/keep an article, then so be it. bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, no article is ever finished. It's suppose to be that whoever started, will continue and expand the article, but after some time. It is for people who would like a break from Wikipedia. Anyone is welcome to continue, but all it is saying, hold on, this will be better. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No use for this template, if it is a new article then {{underconstruction}} is appropriate, but only for a short time. Per Charles this template implies ownership. It essentially begging admins not to delete an article purely on the basis that it is not finished which isn't appropriate. If admins deleted on the basis of incompleteness then much of wikipedia simply wouldn't exist. Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2011 (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:Metacaixa

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) 01:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Complex template which appears to originate from eswiki. No purpose stated or documentation given. Unused. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (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:Mixteca Region, Oaxaca

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 per db-author request. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mixteca Region, Oaxaca (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Huge navbox; too big to be of any use. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not used, and will not be. I created this template, then realized it was too large and broke into smaller ones for each district, e.g. Template:Juxtlahuaca District, Oaxaca. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth you can db-author it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 April 2011 (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:MnSCU

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) 01:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template page itself states that this template is deprecated. It is completely redundant to the given replacement. Unused. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frietjes (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (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:Mississippi Landmark designation

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) 20:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mississippi Landmark designation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Old. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been superseded by {{Designation}}. Delete. While you're at it, may as well delete {{National Register of Historic Places designation}} and {{World Heritage Site designation}}.--14:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted per the comment above, which was made by creator Dudemanfellabra — he's the only significant editor in the template's history. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (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:Corinthians Memorial - Hall of Fame

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) 01:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corinthians Memorial - Hall of Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think a template for a memorial of a football club is necessary. Buí (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a memorial. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (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:Category tree

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete since there appears to have been a change to the MediaWiki software so that all of the sub-categories are now always displayed (unless it is more than 200 I guess - which means the template usage is unwieldy anyway). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep. Remove from categories where the #1 parameter isn't used. This template's fairly extensive use on project pages, image files, templates and portal pages makes it a keeper. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 01:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across cases where the subcats in the Category tree box did not agree with the subcats in the later listing. This might be due in part to the omission of a space when adding a subcat to a cat, as in:
[[Parent cat title|Subcat title]]

vs.

[[Parent cat title| Subcat title]]

From what I've seen, the first bullet adds the subcat to the main list in the parent cat but not to the subcat list. Adding the space after the pipe puts the subcat in the subcat list. There's no sense to have both this template and the later subcat list. This can "abuse and confuse". Very useful tool before the upgrade, tho. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 08:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fix. It seems to be working on the Commons. See:

Commons:Template:Category tree

Commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Category tree --Timeshifter (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant due to the recent changes of MediaWiki. 03:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

How would you fix it? There's probably nothing inherently wrong with the cat-tree template. It's just not needed anymore. Why would you want to have TWO separate listings of subcategories??? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix where necessary; remove from category pages but only where parameter {{{1}}} is unspecified. I believe that it is needed. There is sometimes a need to show a category tree on a page which is not itself a category page; for example, on a WikiProject page. There are many such instances at the moment, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, as I also see several User pages, image files, templates and a whole bunch of portal pages that either transclude or link to the cat tree. Probably no fixing necessary, tho. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 01:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is on many pages (may not be perfect but there seems to be no replacement at this time??Moxy (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since as noted above this template is not just used within the category namespace but is also very useful for e.g. portals (such as Portal:Law of England and Wales/Categories, which is where I noticed this nomination). Bencherlite ^Talk 17:45, 14 April 2011 (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:Liberal Party leadership election, 2003

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) 02:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Liberal Party leadership election, 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per recent deletion of the comparable templates for the 2006 and 2009 leadership elections, this is an unnecessary bit of creeping templatitis that serves only to link individual candidates to each other in a contest that's already more than adequately served by the Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2003 article itself. Simply not needed. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (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:Liberal Party leadership election, 1990

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) 02:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Liberal Party leadership election, 1990 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per recent deletion of the comparable templates for the 2006 and 2009 leadership elections, this is an unnecessary bit of creeping templatitis that serves only to link individual candidates to each other in a contest that's already more than adequately served by the Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 1990 article itself. Simply not needed. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2011 (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:KomerčníbankaAwardDrama

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) 02:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No corresponding article for award. Template links to a bank page. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The award is fully referenced yet in Komerční banka as well as Národní divadlo articles. Uzerakount (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is now because you added that information after the nomination. These awards still should be separate articles. Why are you rushing to create templates before creating the articles and establishing notability? GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (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:KomerčníbankaAwardBalet

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) 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable. No article for award and all the awardees are redlinks GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The award is notable, it is the annual award sponsorshipped by Komerční banka on behalf of the Czech National Theatre, and is fully referenced in both articles Komerční banka and Národní divadlo. Uzerakount (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (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:ActorsMissionAward

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) 02:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template refers to an award for which there is no corresponding Wikipedia article. It links to a film festival article for which there is no mention of the award GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on providing more details as for the award that was earned by numerous international artists to date. The names speak for themselves I believe. Anyway, in general such deletion policy as this one would mean that also a song/film that has no background articles should be deleted, which is nonsense as I believe. Also bear in mind we discuss here a foeign award that has been established in non english country. Thus, my work for english wikipedia means that apart from finding sources I have to translate each and every single word to english in addition. So hope you can appreciate even the effort that you as it seems take for granted. Uzerakount (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are for notable awards. If there is no award article, then there is no notability. Create the article first. That will establish its notability. Afterwards create the template. Don't put the cart before the horse. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2011 (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.