Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18 edit

Template:Mercurial-section 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is basically a copy of {{current}} and {{current-section}}. Same argument as, for below, {{mercurial}} and {{Frequently updated}}
This "mercurial-section" template should be deleted, not redirected. {{current}} also provides the same functionality to highlight a section. This template seems to not have other pages linking to it at present. — Yellowdesk 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the difference is here. Is there one? I can't think of any mercurial information which is not part of a current event. --Haemo 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my discussion under Mercurial below. I attempt(!) to explain the difference. -- 'bitchen' ric 15:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also the term mercurial is a rather poor one to use and will go over most people's heads. --Farix (Talk) 12:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with TheFarix. Carlosguitar 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Using less than common words impresses no one. - Koweja 12:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for using a different word, but I feel the template is not redundant. -- 'bitchen' ric 15:00, 24 August 2007 (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:Portuguese channels 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 merge and delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned and completely useless, since it already exists the 'Portuguese television stations' template . — 89.155.202.107 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge channels then delete - orphaned to {{Portuguese television stations}}, but there are channels in the nominated template which could be added to the other existing template before the nominated template is deleted. --tgheretford (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2007 (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:Frequently updated 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to {{mercurial}} below, it serves the same purpose as {{current}}.
{{current}} was originally created for the purpose of informing editors that an article might at the present time have many editors editing the article. The "mercurial" template should be deleted, not redirected. There are already plenty of redirects to "current." "Frequently upated" is apparently linked to by one user page at this time. — Yellowdesk 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete rather obvious, considering its non-use.,DGG (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-used and replaceable by {{current}}. Carlosguitar 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{current}}. - Koweja 12:43, 23 August 2007 (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:Mercurial 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is basically a copy of {{current}}.
{{current}} was originally created for the purpose of informing editors that an article might at the present time have many editors editing the article. The "mercurial" template should be deleted, not redirected. There are already plenty of redirects to "current." "Murcurial seems to not have any other pages presently linking to it. — Yellowdesk 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

From the creator of the template: I created this template, because I was documenting the formats of radio stations in a town (Fort Wayne, IN) where the formats change frequently. I wouldn't call this a "current event" by any stretch. I'm all for deleting it if there is a standard template that warns the user that this information could change at a moment's notice, yet it is not a "current event."

I see current event as something that's unfolding and we don't have all the information. This is an instance where at any given point we know ALL of the information (or, at least, the information is knowable) but it could change at the drop of a hat.

I also agree that "Mercurial" is probably a bad word for it (however accurate it is), and perhaps support deletion for that sole basis. but I think we need something besides {{current}} to replace it with. The format of radio stations is not a current event, it is mercurial information :)

Rich, *is* there a standard way of saying "This information is current as of date but may change at any time due to it's nature?" -- 'bitchen' ric 14:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree in principle. Be aware, however, that the reason mercurial is not used may partly be because I (SmackBot) canonicalise (most) templates when dating them. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16 18 August 2007 (GMT).

Delete per nom. Also the term mercurial is a rather poor one to use and will go over most people's heads. --Farix (Talk) 12:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely redundant. - Koweja 12:44, 23 August 2007 (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:CanucksRoster 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Vancouver Canucks Roster — IrisKawling 20:35, 18 August 2007 (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.

Various Template:Infobox animanga subtemplates 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these haven't been used in a while. The Licensed templates appear to be a fork of their respective base templates which already has a "licensor" filed, two appear to be cruft left over from the pre-ParserFuctions days and the rest are junk. --Farix (Talk) 19:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am responsible for the three "Licensed" templates and I forgot to place a speedy delete tag on them...sorry about that.--十八 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Squilibob 09:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:32, 22 August 2007 (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 Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch character 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 Speedy delete - test page. Mike Peel 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused character infobox. Was only used once and was quickly removed.[1][2] --Farix (Talk) 18:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Could have been speed deleted with {{Db-test}} --Squilibob 09:47, 22 August 2007 (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:AFL club theme songs 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. Mike Peel 06:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all of the AFL club songs have been merged into the team articles (no doubt due to them having no notability on their own) making this template redundant.. Russavia 12:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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:Iraq Squad 2007 AFC Asian Cup 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 Keep. Mike Peel 06:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-World Cup squad template. Previous deletion precedents and discussions can be found here. — Neier 07:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - admirable, as champions; but, previous precedent is very strong against the templates for any national squad besides the World Cup entries. Neier 07:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus. Punkmorten 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi, I'm the Iraq Squad template creator, I have no problem with your decisions, If you think it's the Best thing for Wikipedia to delete this Template, so it's Okay... but personally I prefer to Keep. Mussav 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, had I known about this debate when it was going on I would have voted to keep squad lists for the various confederations' top level competitions (namely Copa America, African Cup of Nations, European Championships, and Asian Cup) and also the Confederations Cup. The fact is, having additional squad lists at the bottom of a player's page does not clutter them any more than having long succession boxes for long-lived British statesmen like William Gladstone. I know there is currently a precedent that these squad lists should be deleted but that is something for the closing admin to take into account - personally I dislike taking one side or the other with the sole reason being "there is precedent". ugen64 21:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, relevant and useful. Dfrg.msc 07:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a page already exists with this same info (and much more), because it is useful and relevant: Asian Cup 2007 squads#Iraq. Linking to it from team member articles is the current style of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Neier 07:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ugent64 made some pretty good points. I don't see the problem with the template. Every Championship team from a notable tournament should have a template. Chaldean 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Ugen64. I would also have argued for templates for continental championships if I had known about this debate. Of course the WC is the most important tournament, but only allowing WC templates give the impression that the continental championships don't count at all wich is far from true. There are a lot of countries that have made remarkable feats in such a competition (Iraq, Greece, Denmark...) but who may never make an impact in, or even qualify to, a WC and it would be a shame if these achivements would be belittled just because they weren't in a WC. In the case of the Iraqi template I think it would be wrong not to keep it since this is probably going to be the biggest achievment in the career of every player in it. And perhaps it wouldn't be a problem with over-cluttering with an additional template to all of the WC templates of the Iraqi players... Sebisthlm 10:59, 24 August 2007 (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:Ecuador 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. Mike Peel 06:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:User_Ecuador. Should be deleted. — --_Hdt83 _Chat 05:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. –sebi 05:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misleading and redundant. Punkmorten 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplication. Carlosguitar 05:21, 22 August 2007 (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:Audio-nolinks 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. Mike Peel 06:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Audio, which is better designed, offering playback. Audio-nolinks uses an audiolink class (audio icon) without playback; it just links: therefore it is misleading. --Kjoonlee 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading. –sebi 11:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, this is the template's creator. I believe this is a useful, necessary, cluttlerless alternative to Template:Audio, which does not compromise the original design. Think of it as analogous to an image thumbnail, where you click to access the description page first. The effect is enhanced readability by moving the info and help links to the audio's description page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: Regarding the use of the audio icon, I believe it is absolutely necessary, as it informs the reader this is not a regular article link.)[reply]
- Bad analogy. Image thumbnails are small images. You click, and you get visual data. Regular audio templates are playback templates, with a speaker icon to match. You click, and you get audio data. This template isn't a playback template, so it isn't like a thumbnail. --Kjoonlee 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out at [3], if you don't like the links, hide them yourself! --Kjoonlee 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad use of audio icon. People expect playback, not a page. All other audio templates use class="audiolink" for playback. --Kjoonlee 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tend to agree with Kjoonlee that this is impractical. >Radiant< 10:32, 20 August 2007 (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.