Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 26

< October 25	October 27 >

October 26 edit

Template:Renewable energy by country 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. If someone feels like it's too large, then go edit it. :) Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not helpful and is redundant. We already have the "Renewable energy by country" category, here. And we have a List of renewable energy topics by country article. To have an additional template is not necessary and just confuses the issue. Johnfos 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Categories are not a good substitute for a template as templates are easier to access and organize and are more visible, which allows greater involvement by the average Wikipedian. A list is good but does not allow easy access from each article that is linked.--Jorfer 03:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that Navboxes are meant to replace see also sections with elements mutual to multiple articles and not categories.--Jorfer 03:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category does the job well enough, and this is a very large template that is only going to get bigger - imagine how huge it will be when all countries which use these forms of energy have articles created for them, which is presumably the long-term goal. And then add in the equivalents for geothermal and hydroelectric energy, both of which have yet to be put on there, and also very likely wave/tidal energy. The size of the template is already very large - soon it will be unmanageable. Using the category tree thus becomes the only sensible answer. The category also allows subcategories sorted by both power type and by country, so that eithe method of searching for articles is possible. To do that in the template would require doubling its size. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cut down - look at Category:Nuclear power by country, it doesn't contain a direct list of the nuclear power in xx articles. So obviously it's not completely redundant with categories. One way or the other, there is at least a need for a few templates that illustrate that we have country specific articles for a power source and what those are. It doesn't make sense to complicate the issue more by having multiple templates, which is why we have this. It does get a little redundant with some that I've made like Template:Energy in Spain, but it's good that we can cover all these links in one place. Also, these should be expected to be decent size articles (not like power plant stubs) and I think that this template is entirely appropriate. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to say that List of renewable energy topics by country is very helpful, but I had no idea it existed. Just put a link to it on the top of the template and keep both. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 28 October 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:Baseball Links 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. matt br 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template (created in 2006) is unused. Suggested action: delete.— NatureBoyMD 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. SkierRMH 23:28, 26 October 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 computer game 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. matt br 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken, unused and obsoleted by template:infobox VG. — Chris Cunningham 15:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused & redundant to {{infobox VG}} SkierRMH 23:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This seems to be a probable term for an infobox, so a redirect would be better then deleting the template. --Farix (Talk) 21:09, 29 October 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:Peru district table 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. matt br 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template replaced by {{Infobox District Peru}}. Victor12 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orphaned/unused. SkierRMH 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR 01:17, 27 October 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:Nielsen Characters 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. matt br 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the uploader's contributions, I believe he truly intends to create an article on each and every one of Nielson's appearances in film (including minor characters and straight-to-dvd productions). This template is already obsolete by Leslie Nielsen character list - an already redundant offshoot of the coverage of Nielsen's filmography.. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to nominate this myself. This will only encourage creation of hundreds of articles for non notable Leslie Nielsen characters, and it has no navigational use, so is worthless as a template. Crazysuit 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, completly unnecessary. -NatureBoyMD 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G7, blanked by author. Neil916 (Talk) 05:38, 31 October 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 City Romania 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. matt br 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized to Infobox Settlement. No longer needed. — MJCdetroit 03:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 23:08, 26 October 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 Commune Romania 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. matt br 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A slight variation of the above TfD, Infobox City Romania. Now no longer needed. — MJCdetroit 03:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 23:07, 26 October 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:MelbStn begin 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. matt br 07:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

procedural nomination Originally tagged by User:Wongm for Speedy Deletion via WP:CSD#A3, but does not map to this or other criteria found at WP:CSD. However, no information is available that would indicate use of the template; therefore, it is an orphan template (no transclusions, no use directions) — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orphaned and with no clear use. One could argue WP:CSD#G2, but I'm not familiar enough with rail systems to know if there was a legit use at one time or not. JPG-GR 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned & inability to see usefulness. Assuming good faith creation (not a test) by User:TPK given his edit history. There is a notice of this TfD on his talk page. SkierRMH 23:06, 26 October 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:Pieces-stringquartet-composer 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 deleted by Hyacinth. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is no longer necessary. All articles which used it have been deleted. [1] — S.dedalus 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --S.dedalus 01:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Hyacinth 03:07, 28 October 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.