Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22 edit

African region 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These five templates are redundant to Template:Countries of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is already present on all articles that contain them. There's no need for six templates when one will do, and since {{Countries of Africa}} is already organized by region, they offer no added functionality. Picaroon (t) 00:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These templates are, as noted by the nominator, particularly useless considering the structure and organization of the main template.--Aldux (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see any real use for these templates. Terraxos (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Ipoellet (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Happy‑melon 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom - redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 07:32, 29 December 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:CongBio2 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete through merge. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{CongLinks}}. CL supercedes CB2. —Markles 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ merge into CongLinks (superseded). SkierRMH (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CL supercedes CB2. Flatterworld (talk) 02:04, 26 December 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:Perryton Radio 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A radio market with 2 stations doesn't need a navigation box.. Rtphokie (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - um...yeah. I have seen small markets, but that is nuts. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "see also" would work for this 'metropolitan' market. SkierRMH (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That's ridiculous. Happy‑melon 21:42, 28 December 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:Illinois cities 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant to the major cities section of Template:Illinois, is not transcluded onto any pages, and no discussion (except for statements by this template's creator) has taken place on this template, whether by the Illinois wikiproject or by anyone else. It's standard practise to have this section on the state template — all fifty state templates have them. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and redundant, per nom. Terraxos (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 07:30, 29 December 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:Florida cities 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant to the largest cities section of Template:Florida, is not transcluded onto any pages (except two highway articles, not linked or likely to be linked on this template), and no discussion (except for statements by this template's creator) has taken place on this template, whether by the Florida wikiproject or by anyone else. It's standard practise to have this section on the state template — all fifty state templates have them. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have to agree. It's redundant. Just to clarify the above statement, if you look at any of the state templates, such as Template:Florida, it already has a counties section. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 07:30, 29 December 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:Florida topics 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant to the topics section of Template:Florida, is not transcluded onto any pages, and very little discussion has taken place on this template, whether by the Florida wikiproject or by anyone else — only three editors (including the template's creator), all taking different points of view. It's standard practise to have this section on the state template — as far as I know, all fifty state templates have them. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused; redundant to FL template. SkierRMH (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:44, 28 December 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:Congressional delegation 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 section.

The result of the debate was to replace. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Congress delegation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which currently redirects to {{Congressional delegation}}

Merge to {{CurrentCongDeleg}} ("CCD").

Reason: CCD supercedes "Congressional delegation" ("CD"). On CD's discussion page last year it was discussed that we should delete CD, but nobody did. It's of no use to us and all pages which use CD should use CCD instead.

The two are different: CD is for the 110th Congress and CD is for the current members of the 110th Congress. CD was created for the incoming 110th Congress, to prepare for that new Congress. Once it convened, however, CD was intended then to be replaced by CCD. But nobody got around to it. There have been 9 deaths/retirements in the Congress since January 2007, so the current members are no longer the same as the original members. There is no real practical use for CD.

Merge/delete per nom - these templates have been deprecated and are redundant. Terraxos (talk) 04:25, 28 December 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.

Old article history tags 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 section.

The result of the debate was mark 2 and 4 as historical, delete 1, 3, and 5. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am investigating the gradual migration of talk-page content templates towards {{ArticleHistory}} and have found these templates to be old (sometimes very old) versions of various content templates currently in use. While all content templates have now been deprecated by ArticleHistory, the move to delete them is controversial, so note that {{GA}} or {{oldpeerreview}} etc are not in this list - all these templates have been deprecated by another more recent content template which is itself deprecated by ArticleHistory. As such, none of these templates are used in any articles and are very much relics of a bygone age. Delete all. — Happy‑melon 12:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that the first of these templates is actually currently in use on one article - see Talk:Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing. It was added as recently as last November, suggesting that at least one of these templates is still 'active'. In that case, might it be better to add a note to them saying they are deprecated, and should be replaced with {{ArticleHistory}} where found, as with {{Activepolitician}} and {{WPBiography}}? Or would it be easier just to delete them? (I'd be fine with deletion myself, but just wanted to raise this alternative.) Terraxos (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this as a way to provide a link to a peer review archive. I am going to make this easier to do with {{oldpeerreview}} and entirely support the deletion of {{oldpeerreviews}}: this template is not active in my view. Geometry guy 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I check oldpeerreviews whenever I remember, and it can acquire up to a half-dozen uses in two months, though sometimes with only one link. You can add a note to the docs not to use it, but I suspect some users won't notice and will continue to use it. FormerFA and FARCfailed refer to an old process and so aren't needed, but FARpassed and FormerFA2 would be used if FAR needs to do things by hand. Gimmetrow 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me then that deletion of {{oldpeerreviews}} is a particularly good idea, since no one advocates that it be used that way. What do you mean by "if FAR needs to do things by hand" - you mean if GimmeBot ever explodes and everyone has to go back to candles and steam power? Happy‑melon 16:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. Or its operator goes away for a while. Gimmetrow 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or mark as deprecated. It may be worth keeping a version of FARpassed and FormerFA(2) for historical reasons, marked as deprecated. The rest should be deleted. Geometry guy 19:03, 29 December 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.

BR-** 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplication of Country_data_Brazil — Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. All template appear to be able to be generated using the more versatile {{Country data Brazil}}. JPG-GR (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom - overall country template appears to be adequate. SkierRMH (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:44, 28 December 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:United States Squad 2006 FIBA World Championship 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 section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not in general uphold creation of templates for non-gold medal winning teams in order to keep every beloved team from having templates. — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In other sports every team that participated in a world championship tournament has its own template, no matter what the results they achieved. Continental championships templates are not necessary in my opinion, but world championship are.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ArnoldPettybone. The soccer project has come up with a well-defined criteria, which allows for including World Cup rosters for all participating teams. The FIBA championships are just like that. Neier (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons stated directly below. Chengwes (talk) 17:11, 29 December 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:Footer 2004 Olympic Bronze Medalists Basketball Men 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 section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not in general uphold creation of templates for non-gold medal winning teams in order to keep every beloved team from having templates. — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Keep as I wrote in another article, only olympic and world championship teams are considered. I don't really see the problem in having as many templates as possible.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Comment If it is deleted then all those in Category:Basketball_Olympic_Bronze_medalists_templates would need deleting as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No deleting a template does not mandate deleting the articles for all the links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that a template for a medal in olympics or world championship is more important than Category:EA Sports NBA Live Cover Athletes or Category:2003 NBA Draft for an athlete as you can in the article of Carmelo Anthony for example. Thank you.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The soccer project has a policy allowing templates for all the teams playing at the top-level tournament (the World Cup; and, the Olympics prior to 1992 when I think they switched to requiring all players to be under-22 or something). AFAIK, the Olympics are at the same competitive level as the FIBA championships, and there is no prevailing reason to discriminate for/against either of those competitions. Neier (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The World Championships, and, for that matter, the Olympics are a top-level tournament that receive plenty of independent third-party coverage. Furthermore, I think we should follow the soccer guidelines when it comes to this topic. Chengwes (talk) 17:11, 29 December 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.