Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 8

< October 7	October 9 >

October 8 edit

Template:Official site 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) 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really useful template from my perspective. It seems the intended purpose of it is to work as a catchall template to standardise the anchor text. Templates like TV.com and IMDb are useful because they are single websites which are used highly on Wikipedia, so we use a template to avoid having to update a thousand+ broken links (if they were to change). I've no yet come across an article that has "problem anchor text", so I feel this template should be deleted (what real purpose would it serve, other than to add backlog to the cache when the template is changed?) Matthew 14:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jerry 15:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no useful purpose at all, and a lot of articles link to the official website in an infobox, so having this in the External links section (or create a whole new External links section solely for that single link) isn't doing much for the article at all. ~ Sebi _[talk] 09:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be used via [xx.com Official XXX website] instead. Miranda 04:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template may be small but it's valuable in that it provides a consistent way to express links to official websites. What harm does this template cause? I use it on dozens of radio station articles. --Rtphokie 13:43, 11 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:Family Guy (TBS) 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) 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly redundant, provides a third succession box for Family Guy episode articles — apparently as a re-sorted, incomplete episode list from the perspective of one of the syndication networks. All Family Guy episode articles currently use {{Infobox Television episode}}, containing season lists and succession boxes; most or all also all have {{Episode navigation}} succession boxes at the bottom. I can't imagine why anyone thought a third navigation box was needed. edg ☺ ★ 11:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information; if this were allowed to stand, pretty soon CSI would have a whole bunch of confusing successionboxes about the hopeless scrambled order in which is often airs as re-runs on this network or that, and so on. Ick. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish that people would learn how to search for existing templates. Lots of redundant ones. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely redundant and certainly not encyclopedic. Nburden 11:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has all the episodes that were made BEFORE the cancellation VERY early this century. TheBlazikenMaster 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the episodes on TBS are reruns and can be seen by the existing templates. Miranda 04:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. No reason at all for it. Saget53 16:16, 13 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:User No Pro-West Stereotype 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) 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic. Not. NPOV. Not helpful.. Rocket000 05:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD G1, as patent nonsense, defn. #2. There is nothing Wikipedia knows of called the "Pro-West Stereotype", so the ubx is nonsensical. I think the user could have meant Western pervasive bias, but it's really anyone's guess. Failing speedy, then delete per nom. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I think is better to speedy under T1. Carlosguitar 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space of author per WP:GUS. If he wants to keep it, fine, but it doesn't really belong in the template namespace. Melsaran (talk) 17:49, 11 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:Latest stable release/VertrigoServ 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 G6. --ais523 16:40, 13 October 2007 (U T C)

This template was apparently meant to be used only in the VertrigoServ article or articles discussing this software. The VertrigoServ article has been deleted via AFD. A search for the software name did not reveal cases where the template was subst rather than transcluded; the only significant transclusion is in Template:Infobox Software2/updates. — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete; we do not need a template lingering around that only refers to material so non-notable its own article has been deleted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps even G6; the associated article has been deleted, so this template serves no purpose anymore (not sure it did anyway). Melsaran (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would certainly be G6; I'll go ahead and tag it. Gracenotes^T § 06:35, 13 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:Michigan I-94 business connections 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 WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin close. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 01:07, 10 October 2007 (GMT)

Seeing that WP:USRD and its child projects are merging Business route articles into one, I fail to see how this is useful. Furthermore, if templates of this kind are made generic to work for all Interstates, then we'd have articles full of templates rather than actual prose.. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 00:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Until such time as the articles may be merged, this template provides useful navigation functionality. Imzadi1979 00:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles will be merged, and thus this template is not useful. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this article doesn't exist yet - I would strongly recommend this article be created first before doing this TFD. Once it is created - then I'll say Delete master son^{T - C} 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that the articles are merged - we will not need this template. master son^{T - C} 12:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge the articles~~ (done) and delete template. —Scott5114 ↗ 02:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the articles are all merged. --NE2 10:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until articles merged, then delete template per all of the above discussion which mostly is really just saying the same thing in different ways. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles have been merged to Business routes of Interstate 94. —Scott5114 ↗ 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I made the template with the idea of having an easy way of navigating between the different business loop articles, but now that they're all merged, there isn't really a need for it now, as the arguments above clearly point out. Spicy 12:21, 9 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.