Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16 edit

Template:Coor dms mountain 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 per CSD G7 (author request). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last edited March 2005. No response to old comment on talk page noting pointlessness. — Andy Mabbett 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. I wrote this, and I don't even remember what it is for. hike395 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD author. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:34, 17 June 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:User Knighted Wikipedian 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The result of the debate was userfied to User:Roy Biv/Knighted Wikipedian and nomination withdrawn. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a userbox created and used by only one editor, who has been inactive for 11.5 months. Userfying seems unnecessary in this case. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just saw that the editor in question was blocked shortly before becoming inactive. It seems likely that he or she has left the project. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy which I was WP:BOLD and did. User block was only 24 hours. -N 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support userfication. Userboxes that have not been publicized in lists and categories are often known and used only by the creator, but that doesn't mean they are illegitimate. –Pomte 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per Pomte. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 17 June 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.

User:Da.Tomato.Dude/Signature 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 It doesn't matter where this discussion takes place, it is still a violation and there is no question as to the ultimate outcome. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the signature policy, signature templates are prohibited. —dgies^t_c 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete. Violates the signature policy. Leave a message on the user's talk page in case the code is unsaved. —ptk✰fgs 18:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete. -N 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete housekeeping. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - violates guideline. –Pomte 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. This violates signature guidelines, but user pages are supposed to be handled through Miscellany for deletion, not here. -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed here because it's a page which is only used in transclusion, like a template. MfD generally handles "inappropriate" user pages, but this is bad on only technical grounds so TfD seemed more appropriate. —dgies^t_c 04:24, 18 June 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:Chaoticcard 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supports an unneccessary level of detail about specific cards in a minor trading card game. Was previously in use on a handful of stubs that have since been merged into their parent list (fair disclosure: I did the merging). — Serpent's Choice 17:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the nominator is suggestion that these monsters do not meet WP:N. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only possible articles this template could be used on should not exist. Pointless, and redundant to the [[null] template. --Haemo 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for articles on individual cards. The result is List of Chaotic monsters. –Pomte 16:04, 24 June 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:ATWT history 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 Withdrawn. Richard 07:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template which was replaced long ago on the As the World Turns article. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reformat I'm sorry, what template replaced Template:ATWT history? I'm no soap opera fan, but this nav box seems very useful for navigation. I would argue for a horizontal format at the bottom to conform with other nav boxes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib)
Keep The articles linked are huge blobs of in-universe plot descriptions. Until they are deleted, this template should remain to navigate between them. –Pomte 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand. The template is not being used. By any articles. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Whomever closes this. I have a feeling that the users who said keep thought that this section uses this template. Well it doesn't. And it hasn't for at least 3 months now. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I didn't check to see that the series of history articles that the template links to got substituted a long while back. –Pomte 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all the usage were subst:'ed, I would still argue to keep this, and un-subst:. It is a legit nav box. And as far as I can tell, this show is still going. The list may grow and putting the content in one template, instead of 6 articles, makes update convenient. Even if the show stops before 2010, the template is still better than copied-and-pasted boxes all over the places. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to have any use beyond the main article though. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about at History of As the World Turns (1956-1959), History of As the World Turns (1960-1969) and so forth? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:10, 27 June 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:Aussie Rules in New South Wales 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 with a recommendation to trim the template. Pax:Vobiscum 07:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most teams do not have an article and generally most will not meet sporting team notability requirements. Requesting removal of template as redlinking so many articles encourages creating articles on non-notable teams.. Breno ^talk 06:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim Remove "Junior Metropolitan Leagues", "Regional Junior Leagues", and "Masters Leagues" groups. They seem to be the non-notable teams the nominator refers to. By the way, there is a Template:Aussie Rules in South Australia. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim The template refers to competitions not teams and the competitions are indeed notable and can be sourced. I don't think that there is consensus about the notability of teams for that matter. Agreed that junior and "masters" competitions are unlikely to be notable. Similar templates exist for each state in Australia, in addition to the above;
Australian rules football is the most popular spectator sport in Australia and even semi-professional football competitions in suburban and rural areas have a social impact over and above the standard of play. I have started some work on a draft notability guideline some months earlier and my thoughts on notability can be seen there. - User:Mattinbgn/Sandbox - Notability Australian football leagues and clubs. The nomination of the this template for deletion seems to be part of a campaign to delete articles on Australian rules football leagues and clubs that should be discussed at greater length. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Agree with Mattinbgn that these template deletes should be grouped into a larger xfd discussion regarding notability of teams and competitions. If it's ok with everyone else I'd like to withdraw this tfd and consolidate issue. --Breno ^talk 06:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim Remove "Junior Metropolitan Leagues", "Regional Junior Leagues", and "Masters Leagues" groups. While you are at it, remove most of the Gridiron articles created by the user who nominated this page for deletion. Gridiron in Australia is less notable than Australian rules football in Sydney. BTW personal agendas should not be disguised as genuine wikipedia moderation. My 2 cents. --Rulesfan 09:41, 25 June 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:Fox Interactive Media 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This template is superfluous with that for News Corporation, which also has a line for Fox Interactive Media in it. As such, the template proposed for deletion is superfluous. --AEMoreira042281 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I want to point out that {{News Corporation}} doesn't have American Idol, while {{Fox Interactive Media}} does. And I'm not sure why {{Fox Interactive Media}} became, or should be, a subset of {{News Corporation}}. American Idol does not seem like news to me, nor does AskMen.com or MySpace.

Comment Perhaps one between {{IGN Entertainment}} and {{Fox Interactive Media}} should be deleted. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---All of the templates can be merged into just the News Corporation template, however. I will likely propose THAT template for deletion too, as per established procedure. --AEMoreira042281`

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and get rid of the row in {{News Corporation}}, reducing Fox Interactive Media to a link in "Misc. assets". I don't think readers at Askmen.com and the like would find it useful to navigate to everything else owned by the News Corporation. {{IGN Entertainment}} should be merged into {{Fox Interactive Media}} as the former got bought by the latter. –Pomte 15:55, 24 June 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:WikiProject Bleach 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 on creator's request Pascal.Tesson 23:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This talkpage banner was created back when WikiProject Bleach was being proposed. However, the proposed project was created as a work group of WikiProject Anime and manga instead of being a separate WikiProject. This template is unused and WikiProject Anime and manga already accommodates the work group with a switch on its own banner template ({{WikiProject Anime and manga|bleach-work-group=yes}}). --Farix (Talk) 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deprecated/unused. –Pomte 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused --Breno ^talk 06:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I made this (unused) template out of haste when making the Bleach project, and it has since been replaced by a more appropriate one. // DecaimientoPoético 13:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I'll stick the {{db-author}} on there for you. There is no need for the discussion to go on further. --Farix (Talk) 20:13, 16 June 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.