Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 14

< April 13	April 15 >

April 14 edit

Template:Redmarkviolinist/TalkPage 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 discussion was speedy deleted as a test page. JPG-GR (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redmarkviolinist/TalkPage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (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:Joshbr/Menu 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 discussion was moved to userspace. JPG-GR (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (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:Taprobanus/Navibar 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 discussion was moved to userspace. JPG-GR (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taprobanus/Navibar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (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:Leujohn/Userboxes 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 discussion was moved to userspace. JPG-GR (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Leujohn/Userboxes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2009 (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:Supreme Master Ching Hai 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 discussion was speedy deletion G7. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supreme Master Ching Hai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; former walled garden template; the few redlinks with article attempts have been deleted for non-notability and unref or self-ref. MuffledThud (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it consists almost entirely of redlinks. As such, it is just pointless clutter. LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is entirely red links except for the main article about Ching Hai, and the awards link which points to a one sentence section of the article about her. LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:37, 14 April 2009 (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:United States Current Squad 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 discussion was delete. Erik9 (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Current Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Current squad" templates for national teams are not appropriate, considering the fluid nature of national team squads and the fact that a national team squad stays together for only a few days during the season. – Pee Jay 00:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PeeJay2K3's proposal. Completely agree with reasoning. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Provided it is kept up to date, I would far rather see this at the bottom of national team pages than a current squad list that in some cases more than doubles the page size. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but there's no way you CAN keep it up to date. It will change with every game. Plus, the author of the template has added it to every player's page, which will mean constant additions and deletions of the template from player pages whenever a new international squad is announced. Delete it. It's just creating a problem where there doesn't need to be one. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For major team, it can be kept up to date; perhaps it sohuld include an asof or other date parameter. DGG (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JonBroxton is right. This will only cause massive issues with keeping things up to date, etc. – Pee Jay 09:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with PeeJay and JonBroxton. Also, national team pages already reek of recentism, and this would only further that problem. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom nom nom. chan dler ··· 13:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments of PeeJay, JonBroxton & JohnnyPolo24. King of the North East 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete National squads are too unstable to maintain the template. – LATICS talk 06:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black 'n Red 22:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Highly changeable content suitable as content to an article, not as a template material.. -- 24.218.177.243 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2009 (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.