Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30 edit

Various succession templates 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 delete all M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete by Template:S-start system. No transclusions. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obsolete and unused —David618 ^t e 04:51, 5 December 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:The Smiths Albums 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 delete M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and an unnecessary fork of Template:Succession. Mackensen (talk) 13:39, 30 November 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:Infobox Australian City 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 delete M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete by Infobox Australian Place. No translutions exist, all that links to it is non-mainspace links (mostly archive) --TheJosh 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Orderinchaos78 02:13, 5 December 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:Infobox Australian Town 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 delete M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete by Infobox Australian Place. No translutions exist, all that links to it is non-mainspace links (mostly archive) --TheJosh 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to preserve for archives and history. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how does redirecting preserve archives and history? It only keeps a link blue. --TheJosh 04:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because if someone sees a link to it on a talk page somewhere, they can look back at the history and see what was being talked about on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of these historic conversations are about the conversion of all aussie location templates to Infobox Australian Place, and the actual discussion before a name was chosen an a template created was done there. --TheJosh 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, got the impression that there was something substantial to preserve. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (it was actually outnumbered in usage about 2:1 by Infobox Town AU during its lifespan) Orderinchaos78 02:13, 5 December 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:Policy-change-warning 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 delete M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This policy was recently changed". While well-intended, this doesn't actually help. First, by the nature of the wiki, policy pages change all the time. Second, people who have read the policy in the past tend to assume they know it and tend not to read it again, so the very people who may need to see this template will not in fact see it. Let's face it, when was the last time you followed a link to e.g. WP:NPA to read what the page actually says? Instead, we should list all major policy changes on WP:A or WP:GO. (Radiant) 10:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wait, hold on. The policies are written down? Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you would actually notice this warning, you're probably rereading the policy anyway, so what's the point? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like a pretty pointless template. Major policy changes should be advertised on the Village Pump, Community Portal, etc. Kaldari 23:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another way for contributors to find out what is happening on Wikipedia. The current policy and guidelines are used for AFD and CFD discussions, so I occasionally review guidelines and policies. I would like to be aware that a discussion is happening. The template should be reserved for major policy discussion. I think of it as the AFD warning template for guidelines and policy. There is a major discussion going on the Wikipedia:Image use policy that needs contributor's attention. Someone added a controversial line to the guideline without discussion. People started enforcing the guideline. Any way of increasing discussion is improvement to Wikipedia IMHO.

Also, WP:A, WP:GO, etc. need to be included on the welcome template, as this fine editor of 8000 edits wasn't aware of their existence until now. That's quite a sad statement. Royalbroil^T : C 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Amarkov --Trödel 01:17, 2 December 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:Hong Kong Squad 2006 Asian Games 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 delete all M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A u-23 regional event. Please read why UEFA European Football Championship, Olympics football, Confederations Cup, Europe U-21 Championship squads were deleted. -- Matthew _hk t c 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew _hk t c 07:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, football squad templates are for World Cup and club only. Punkmorten 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I add few of them to tfd, they are regional event (East Asian Cup), ans past bext XI squad. Matthew _hk t c 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information Hikikomori.hk 11:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all previous TfDs about similar squads --Angelo 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and previous deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 16:55, 30 November 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:MelbSuburbBox2 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 delete M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}. No remaining transclusions. --Orderinchaos78 05:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support not needed anymore --TheJosh 11:11, 30 November 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:MelbSuburbBox2/Water 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 delete M a rtinp23 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}. No remaining transclusions or links. --Orderinchaos78 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support has been upgraded --TheJosh 11:11, 30 November 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:Cleanup-link 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 no consensus M a rtinp23 12:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous. When a link is broken, remove it. Don't edit the article merely to tag it as broken! See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_29#Category:Articles_with_broken_links. --Quuxplusone 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should not be encouraging people to just tag things for someone else to fix them, when the things tagged are easily fixable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Quux and Amarkov. (Radiant) 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this for external links or internal links? If internal links then definitely delete, if external probably delete, as it would be better to ask on the articles talk page. Tim! 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intent of this might be for referenced sources that die. In that case, just removing them would desource parts of the text, possibly to disastrous effect. In such cases something with the IA is usually done. I think this template is made for that purpose. The picture I'd suggest changing at any rate, I only knew what the one there now is is because I saw it on a WoW sockpuppet's userpage a while ago. 68.39.174.238 17:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If the link dies, it's just as unsourced whether or not the link is still on the page. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because links dead links can be resurrected with {{wayback}} or {{waybackdate}} or {{waybackref}}. Xtifr _tälk 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as above —David618 ^t e 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dead links can usually be resurrected via the Wayback Machine (I do it when I find 'em), but it's tricky enough to resurrect them that not everyone will know how. Xtifr _tälk 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWe do not remove links which are used as sources if they become dead, per WP:CITE, WP:EL and Wikipedia:Dead external links. If this is kept, it needs to be amended to make that clear. Hiding Talk 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have made some cosmetic edits to this template such as removing the image and superscripting the font. I also changed the linked guideline to "What to do when a reference link 'goes dead'" (we do not remove them). While not yet in use, I can see this becoming a useful template as our references' hyperlinks continue to age. -- Satori Son 20:06, 8 December 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:Marseille-Cassis Calanques 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 delete - doens't violate the GDFL as the "merge" was carried out using the page move function for this template. M a rtinp23 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect that is unused aftre two templates were merged. --Bob 00:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely should be kept for GFDL reasons. --humblefool® 03:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Secondary template this was merged with has already been speedy deleted back in March, and this is no longer being used other than as a redirect. There's no reason to keep this around other than mysterious nostalgia. -- Shiori 01:26, 1 December 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:EmbryologyTemple 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 no consensus M a rtinp23 12:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Spam~~ template for inserting ~~spam~~ links in "external links" sections contrary to Wikipedia:Template namespace —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Converting existing embryology links to Temple University into a standard format does not constitute spam. --Arcadian 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't constitute spam. My choice of wording was overzealous, and for that I apologize. However, Wikipedia:Template namespace states that "Templates should not be used to create serialized links to external sites, with the exception of Wikimedia sisterprojects, such as Wiktionary." I believe this qualifies as such. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 07:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion about Template:Imdb name? --Arcadian 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb has become an accepted standard for movie information. That isn't a very cut and dry distinction, and I admit I'm not as familiar as I could be with template policy. I'm hoping placement on this page will attract some additional parties to comment... —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:00, 1 December 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.