Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 28

< July 27	July 29 >

July 28, 2006 edit

Template:Snapefamilytree edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really useful or necessary. Since this tree consists solely of two parents and their child, the job of this template can be done much more cleanly in the text of the associated articles. Recommend deletion. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 23:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ssbohio 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at the most, merge. Slightly unnecessary to merge though because the details can simply be typed. Thisthema n 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book series incomplete, further additions may be made in the future which may expand its usage. - LA @ 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. The info can (and, in fact, already is) included in the characters' articles (I would be concerned if such info was not already in said articles). As far as Lady Aleena's concerns, if enough new characters are introduced (which, considering there is only one book left, is incredibly doubtful), the template could theoretically be recreated; at this point, saying the template might be useful falls under WP:NOT a crystal ball. -- Kicking222 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Hem hem 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LA --DragonWR12LB 03:47, 4 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Discogs edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Template:Discogs artist. heqs 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should I tag Template:Psyshop (a redirect to it) as well? heqs 22:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ssbohio 20:53, 29 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:HVIII's rchildren edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing Astorknlam's nomination from 15 February. No opinion. Conscious 13:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic involved is encyclopedic. Change the name of the template and the slightly childish language used within the template though. Thisthema n 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Thistheman. --Ssbohio 20:53, 29 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:2003 AC Milan Squad edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. As opposed to World Cup's which occur every 4 years, Champions League occurs every year and it's importance isn't as big as to commemorate every team roster with a template.Squadoosh

Delete per nom. --Monk 11:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a winning team of the most prestigious football club competition in the world. --Repli cant 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Squad templates should be for navigation of similar articles rather than some kind of rosette. Destroy before they spread. Slumgum T. C. 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless clutter. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Write an article about the 2003 final if you want to venerate the squad. aLii 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The winning squad as World Cup template duscussed before. Although few people likes Clarence Seedorf won 3 titles. Matt86hk talk 11:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be totally unmanageable if applied to every winning squad. -- Alias Flood 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ssbohio 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Instinkt 08:04, 30 July 2006 (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 page.