Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 3

< September 2	September 4 >

September 3 edit

Template:Cathead wwii patrol vessels of the 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 as an unnecessary template with a very limited scope, as it was only transcluded on two pages, both categories. — Malcolm (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Nomination This was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD, but templates are out of scope for that discussion path. PROD-nominator stated this reasoning: "Unused template, appears to have been experimental and/or naming was in error." — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Template *is* in use for the United States and the United Kingdom. It is invoked with a country as argument. Click on 'links' above to see the uses. EdJohnston 04:21, 1 September 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 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Shalom ^Hello 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the template has such a limited scope and use, I have substed the template where it has been used. Delete. Singu larity 05:45, 10 September 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:Cathead wwii patrol vessels of 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 as an unnecessary template with a very limited scope, as it was only transcluded on two pages, both categories. — Malcolm (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Nomination This was nominated for deletion via WP:PROD, but templates are out of scope for that discussion path. PROD-nominator stated this reasoning: "Unused template, appears to have been experimental and/or naming was in error." — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remark:Seems to be used (probably exclusively) for cats. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is in use for Canada and France. The categories that use this template have several members. Click on

'links' above to see where it's used. EdJohnston 04:24, 1 September 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 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ed. Shalom ^Hello 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the template has such a limited scope and use, I have substed the template where it has been used. Delete. Singu larity 05:45, 10 September 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:Nong Shim Group 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. Singu larity 05:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless nav template - a red link farm with only two blue links. The two articles already link to each other, so extra linkage via this template is quite unnecessary. The content of this template is duplicated in Nong Shim Group anyway. PC78 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring an attempt to create those articles, or more widespread use of the template--daniel folsom 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Red link farm. Widely unused. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per red link farm, unhelpful by now. Carlosguitar 05:11, 4 September 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:Manchester United 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 redirected by User:PeeJay2K3. Singu larity 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completly useless template- creates a link and adds a picture. Not helpful or noteworthy. All the pages it is linked to appear to be as a result of a redirect to another template. OZ OO (What?) 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does we really need a template for it? If necessary, just subst and delete. Carlosguitar 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.108.192 (talk • contribs)

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:Chapters in 1 Corinthians 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. Singu larity 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template which is over 80% redlinks. It is only there to navigate for 3 articles. I believe this template may encourage readers to create articles on ever single chapter. However, as past discussions in the community have generally shown, wikipedia is not a bible commentary, and not all biblical chapters are created equal. Some are more notable than others. I wouldn't mind completely if the redlinks were removed and this template was used for navigation of the existing chapter articles, but my preference is simply to delete as a bit premature. — Andrew c ^[talk] 16:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless template. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 23:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Don't need templates for navigation through non-existent articles, unless there is a reason to create them, and some prospect they will soon be created. EdJohnston 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - retaining option of recreation if the occasion ever arises when articles on most or all of the chapters exist. John Carter 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold, could we please wait until the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14 (2nd nomination). John Vandenberg 04:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 articles or 2 wouldn't make that much difference to the argument presented by nom. However, since the result of that debate was "merge", this is even more emphatically inappropriate, so delete per nom. Xtifr _tälk 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This template is similar to the one used for the chapters series in John (see John 1). The outcome of that debate indicates we are not yet ready to write articles about chapters of less read books of the bible. I could write useful stubs for all of the chapters in 1 Corinthians in an hour, but with that Afd outcome it wouldnt be appropriate to do so; so delete per nom. John Vandenberg 21:44, 9 September 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.