Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10 edit

Template:Infobox Fashions 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 --The Helpful One 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Fashions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Documentation (also to be deleted, if the template is deleted) doesn't accurately describe a plausible meaning of the template or the fields. Nearly trivial example of {{infobox}}. WikiProject Fashion doesn't find any merit in the template. Created by OregonD00d, who has already had a number of templates, categories, and articles deleted. I waited to nominate this one, hoping for a more definite resolution in WikiProject Fashion, but it seems not to be. The TfD will be annouced there, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant, loosely defined. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified creator, and all 3 who commented on it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion#new infobox, and separately in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the project. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the project. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my fellow wikifashionistas and my comments at WT:FASH as well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as adding no value. - PKM (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs devlopment, but as seen at Low-rise jeans, it can be used to enhance the article. Surf Dog (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was going to say keep due to wide usage but I see 3 strong arguments to delete: 1) relevant wikiproject consensus is delete, 2) use was not organic: it was created and mass-added by one editor without consensus-building discussion rather than created to fill a need and picked up by other editors and/or mass-added after a consensus-building discussion, 3) it's fairly recent. No one of these is enough to override the in wide use but together they are. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this infobox has cluttered up the top of several pages, and simply makes a mess. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, redundant clutter. Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes redundant. --Klein zach 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am willing to close this as delete if someone indicated me how the conversion to Infobox has to be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:27, 29 November 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:External music video 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 no consensus, for now. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 20:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External music video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The "External links" section of an article is the appropriate place to put external links. There's no reason to add yet another section to the increasingly large song infoboxes. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be a widely used template. Isn't this kind of what the "misc" field is for? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Misc" field is for adding things that belong in an article's infobox but aren't built into the template. External links like this do not belong in an article's infobox. They belong in the "External links" section, which is where "External links" go. Sorry if that's rather circular, but it's hard to figure out why external links wouldn't get put in the one section designed to house them. Also, the template is only used in about 100 articles. It's not really "widely used". PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aren't we supposed to avoid linking to external copyvios? I know the template documentation says only to link to licensed showings, but I just can't see that being widely obeyed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be generally obeyed in country music articles, most of which link to CMT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:32, 11 November 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:Cortes 24 Hour Racing 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cortes 24 Hour Racing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NN organization, and does not need a template. Corresponding article is currently up for Afd. D-Day (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the article on the organisation has been deleted as either non-notable or a hoax, this can be safely deleted too. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 22 November 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.