Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 15

< October 14	October 16 >

October 15 edit

Template:Pokémon species 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 Archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Pokémon species Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokémon species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used by one article, currently at AFD. Filled with in-universe information. Has been replaced by largely out-of-univese {{Infobox VG character}} in articles that would use it. See Pikachu and Jigglypuff for examples. Pagra shtak 20:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless template, redundant to other templates which are better suited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Tatarian (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BOLD RUL3R (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this template has nothing to do with Pokemon.--Free way guy 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect for historical reasons. We rarely keep a template for such reasons, but this one was once used by hundreds of articles (one for every Pokemon). Given the interesting evolution (no pun intended) of the pokemon article situation I think we should put this somewhere for historical context. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archive if possible, otherwise Delete. I can understand Ned's statement and agree with it, for historical reasons it would be a good idea to hold onto it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archive per Ned Scott. Maybe in a WikiProject Pokemon subpage?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was planning to nominate it b myself. It's nice someone did it a week earlier. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:11, 22 October 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:Classic Albums 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 Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Classic Albums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm having a hard time determining what constitutes a "classic album" or a "classic album series". The albums I checked did not self identify themselves as part of a classic album series or as a classic album. The list just appears to be one persons opinion of popular rock albums. Apteva (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing when I first saw it, but it turns out the albums listed are those featured on the TV series Classic Albums, which the template's title links to. Whether or not that warrants a navbox I don't know. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I missed that. So should there be a navblock for all of the bands that appear on American Bandstand, or that were played on KSAN, or for sale at Tower Records? Putting the navblock at the bottom of each of the albums seems to give undue weight to them, and in my opinion serves no purpose. Apteva (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very bad idea. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not POV as they were featured on Classic Albums, but they have nothing else in common. Very thin connection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, still usage on dozens of pages.--Freewayguy 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wide usage really isn't a factor in this case. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:08, 23 October 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:LithuaniaAirplayChartNav edit

Template:LithuaniaAirplayChartNav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 discussion was Delete by Golbez, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Useless template, all three pages that are linked are up for deletion, as is the chart itself. Note that the chart is "hosted" on blogas.it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant template. Tatarian (talk) 20:13, 16 October 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:Droid infobox 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Droid infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; redundant with another template: Template:SW Droid. --EEMIV (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and unused. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deelte, via Mythdon.--Free way guy 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:10, 22 October 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:2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification - CAF Second Group Round (Seeding) 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification - CAF Second Group Round (Seeding) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not suitable. The seeding tables are not usually be put at a template. Raymond "Giggs" K o 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTCATALOG RUL3R (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte, no longer use--Free way guy 23:50, 20 October 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:Power Rangers monsters 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Power Rangers monsters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since I nominated the articles listed in this template for deletion, it is suitable that I nominate this template for deletion as well. If you would like to see the deletion nomination for the articles, click here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the articles are deleted, otherwise keep; basically, this one depends on the result of the AFD. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte, seems like all articles is delete.--Free way guy 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the linked articles were deleted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:45, 22 October 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 links cleaned 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External links cleaned (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Permanent cleanup template. Past consensus has been extremely clear that we do not want cleanup tags staying on articles forever. --- RockMFR 03:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tags shouldn't stay on articles forever, I agree. Useless. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What need is there for a template concerning past issues?. We only need issue templates concerning the articles current issues. Issue templates are for the current issues, not past issues. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of notice should go in a comment. No need to alert the general audience. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless template. Tatarian (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which reason for "useless template" are you using?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have citation style template.--Free way guy 23:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The docs for this template explicitly say that it should only be used if there is certain to be an ongoing problem with inappropriate external links. However, this is an ongoing problem with the entire Wikipedia, so maybe it's not necessary on an article-by-article basis.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:40, 22 October 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.

Class II and III railroad templates 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 --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US class II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:US class III (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The reasons can be read at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 15#Class II and III railroad categories, where I am nominating related categories for deletion. NE2 03:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - The nominator followed due process in implementing the change that rendered these templates obsolete. I would also suggest adding the templates (that I created just before the discussed changes) in Category:United States Class III railroads navbox templates for completeness. Slambo (Speak) 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might it be preferable to repurpose those to include all railroads in the state (after a certain year?) and keep the redirects? --NE2 10:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a bizarre alphabet soup of unintelligible acronyms. The articles are sufficient. (Class III railroad, etc.) I assume you are also planning on deleting {{North America class I}}? Apteva (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not. Class I railroads were the major railroads. --NE2 05:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly useful template, but if it's impossible to verify that roads belong on here, it violates WP:OR. Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful templates, still widely in usage.--Freewayguy 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... you're not supposed to orphan templates before taking them here (unless you're replacing them with a better one). --NE2 11:38, 21 October 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.