Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18

Template:Green Party MP 2006-2010

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) 17:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Party MP 2006-2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rather too specific. WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't find it too specific, but rather natural delimitation of subject. Can be widened to included more years, though. --Soman (talk) 20:20, 10 February 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) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it might be advisable to change the template name to dab it. Lots of countries have Green Party MPs. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 22 February 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:Other people4

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) 17:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other people4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hatnote. Can be replaced by the more standard {{other persons}}, as is shown & proven in other persons/testcases. DePiep (talk) 12:06, 10 February 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) 23:13, 18 February 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:This

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 after replacement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hatnote. Duplicate by result. Covered by the more standard {{about}}, as is described in its /doc, and proven in This/testcases. In Hatnotes, we don't need similars: 70+ standards for links?!
Technically: it is used in 2000 articles. So we could do deprecate for now (and for sure). Later on we'll do an Bot request, which might be accepted. Anyway, we should drop it from documentation (broad sense). DePiep (talk) 18:58, 10 February 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) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this - I've actually been wondering what purpose {{For}} serves which isn't better covered by {{About}}, as well, but have been loath to bring it here because it's so widely used. (In fact, I'll make a note on WT:TFD about that one...) Grutness...wha? 22:03, 20 February 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:IFU Teams

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) 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IFU Teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Neither team mentioned on the template ever joined the IFU and the organization disbanded in 2010. Not notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:33, 18 February 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:Secondary school in Algeria

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) 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Secondary school in Algeria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are surely more than four high schools in Algeria. Only two blue links. Unused. (Too broad a topic for a navbox, anyway.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 18 February 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:Sediment transport

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 Withdrawn. Creator intends to repair it and put into use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sediment transport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Miscellaneous collection of topics that appears five times in a row to form this template. Not useful. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for reminding me that this exists! I was in the middle of making it (hence the repeat) and became preoccupied. I'll fix it up and use it. Awickert (talk) 07:07, 18 February 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:SenateResult

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) 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used. Simple enough to type the actual text content. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:01, 18 February 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:Xin Dynasty Sovereigns

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) 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xin Dynasty Sovereigns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A one-ruler dynasty. I've substed the template in Xin Dynasty (it was the only use). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears it was also usedat Wang Mang at one time, since it uses the same text and table appearance. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 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:Senta Berger Films

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) 18:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Senta Berger Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, broken filmography navbox. Filmography navboxes are seeemingly disliked by the community. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:43, 18 February 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:Seventh chords

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) 18:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seventh chords (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Chords}} > "By type" > "Seventh" section. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:37, 18 February 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:Serie A 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) 18:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serie A Years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Serie A seasons}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:35, 18 February 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:SimpleVersion

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) 18:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simple English versions appear in the language links sidebar. I don't think this is quite worthy of a footer box. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:43, 25 February 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:Taj Group of Companies

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 Created by a defacto banned user, speedily deleted. TN X Man 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taj Group of Companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox. Template has only two links. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess you are probabbly right, I just thought that as a group of company it might need a navigation, My fault.--Roman9930 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because many of the companies article is under construction on user pages of User:ITS019 and User:KuwarOnline/Taj SO i will say keep it for now and if it does not seem useful we will delete it in future--Its019 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see template box with 2 links: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Yash_Birla_Group --Its019 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second point, please note that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for keeping a template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks noteable group as looked in google. May be articles can be linked and created.--Alex hulk (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consedring the fact that the above users have pending articles in their user pages the template should remain and linked to upcoming articles.--Roman9930 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All editors voting to keep this template (User:Roman9930, User:Its019, and User:Alex hulk) are indefinitely blocked confirmed socks of a spammer that is behind a persistent long-term effort to promote Taj Pharma and related companies. See User:Deli nk/Taj spam campaign for details. Deli nk (talk) 17:57, 22 February 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.