Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 5

< September 4	September 6 >

September 5

Template:Navbox Company

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) 18:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox Company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to Template:Infobox company. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:35, 5 September 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:Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps

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) 01:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unmodified since 20 June 2006. EmanWilm (talk) 14:00, 5 September 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:Infobox art group

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 Deleted by Fastily. CSD G2. (non-admin closure) -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox art group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

marked "not for use" since 2008 (actually used in just three articles). Redundant to {{Infobox organisation}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G2 unfinished test page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:59, 6 September 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:Insane

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 subst and delete for the one userpage. JPG-GR (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless template with 2 transclusions, not really humorous, and which user? Rcsprinter (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to the one user who is using it (Notedgrant - the other use is in a sandbox). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy inappropriate to leave this on mainspaceCurb Chain (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - for the person who's using it. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 04:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. A three-year-old template unused except by one editor; if it were more recent, one could argue that it was still new and might be adopted by other users, but that's obviously not the case. Note that the template, in a near-identical form, was apparently previously deleted as a result of this 2004 discussion. Its 2008 re-creation is arguably speedily deletable as WP:G4. TJRC (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter if there are 50 users using it, it shouldn't be on the Template namespace. If anyone really wants it to stay as a template, move it to their userspace. Otherwise, substitute it at its 2 transclusions. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 13:16, 7 September 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:Selection of Steinway's Royal Warrants of Appointment

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) 18:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Selection of Steinway's Royal Warrants of Appointment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template's purpose is purely promotional. None of the linked articles have information about the Steinway warrant. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional, created for the purpose of promoting Steinway, by now-blocked editor User:Peoplefromarizona, found to be a sockpuppet for another blocked user, whose history largely consists of edits to promote Steinway. TJRC (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify purely promotional as aboveCurb Chain (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to a list. It would be less in-your-face than a template transcluded into multiple articles, and would be much more amenable to being referenced. TJRC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment what should we do about the other promotional templates like Template:British Royal Warrant holders? --Siliciustheone (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that as a distinct issue. It mentions multiple companies, but is not a promotional template in the sense that the one under discussion is, driven to promote a single company. If you think the British Royal Warrant holders is not appropriate, it would probably be best to open a separate TfD for it; and include others of the same type, if you think that's appropriate. TJRC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I see it, the only difference between Template:British Royal Warrant holders created on 11 July 2007[1] and the one under discussion (Template:Selection of Steinway's Royal Warrants of Appointment) created on 14 August 2011[2] is that Template:British Royal Warrant holders promotes several companies and the one under discussion (Template:Selection of Steinway's Royal Warrants of Appointment) promotes only one company. --Siliciustheone (talk) 13:07, 8 September 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.