Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21 edit

Template:Top ten male golfers 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 Happy‑melon 19:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top ten male golfers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An constantly changeable template which while notable as a minor point in the body of article , isn't notable enough for a template — Gnevin (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part WP:NOTDIR, part WP:IINFO. Mostly WP:NOT a guide for rankings or something. JPG-GR (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An alternative solution would be to add a "World ranking" field to Template:Infobox golfer, with a link to Official World Golf Rankings article. That would put the information onto each golfer's individual page. A navigation box seems like an awkward way of presenting this data. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It adds to the world golf ranking article and the top 10 golfers in the world are notable. --Npnunda (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary method of sorting. I agree that a navbox isn't the way to go here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It shows the top players in one of the top sports in the world and helps people know who is in the top 10. --Tommy23 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which they can do by looking at Official World Golf Rankings#Current rankings, which is actively maintained. That is a much better location than at the bottom of individual golfer articles. Even if this template is updated weekly, it doesn't seem like the articles are. For example, the navbox is still transcluded onto the articles of Vijay Singh, Justin Rose, and KJ Choi, none of which are in the current top ten. This discussion shouldn't be about whether or not a list of the current top ten is useful or not (it is), but about whether or not that list should be in a navbox at the bottom of individual player articles (it shouldnt). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, it doesn't look like this template is maintained as currently as the main article, as Furyk has dropped out and Henrik Stenson is now #10. So if this template is not maintained weekly, why have it? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (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:Vector-images.com 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 Happy‑melon 19:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vector-images.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete tag, too narrow to be mistaken hit, images should be retagged and template deleted. MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when all images have been retagged either with a new license or deleted outright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question retag how? The template has a link to "information on retagging" on commons, but it is an empty page. - Nabla (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2008 (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:Asian Flagfootballs 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 --Nabla (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) delete - Nabla (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asian Flagfootballs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No apparent use for this, and it's currently unused. Perhaps userfy, if this was intended to be part of a user page..? No reason to remain in the template namespace, however. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unclear usage. Punkmorten (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a template. Unused. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:32, 30 July 2008 (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 Warhammer 40,000 Governments 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 --Nabla (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC) delete - Nabla (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Warhammer 40,000 Governments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and likely to remain unused as the fictional governments of Warhammer 40,000 tend to not be subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Pagra shtak 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Presents in-universe data as factual and deals with non-notable subject material. Both former transclusions have been migrated to custom infoboxen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:58, 21 July 2008 (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.