Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6 edit

Template:Romannumeral 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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be abandoned Jeffro77 (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unused and unwanted. Robofish (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've rebuilt it into a nav template, just like the one for the English alphabet, using the reserved Unicode characters for the roman numerals. It is now suitable for use. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that it at least shows something now, but I think the new template is of limited practical value; it would probably only be relevant to the article Roman numerals, which already includes sufficient detail. The symbols inconsistently link to numbers, letters, disambiguation pages, or are merely broken links. Some of the unicode characters will only be represented correctly on a very limited number of systems.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could do with a little more work then... As for the limited value, you can say the same thing about the English language alphabet template that contains just the 26 letters of the alphabet. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference to the alphabet template is that it links to the article of each letter of the alphabet. There seems to be no consistent purpose of the links in this template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should now consistently point to the number articles. So can be added to the number articles for roman numeral navigation. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all point to numbers now, via redirects (which should be converted to direct links), except V, which goes to the letter V, and 2 unicode characters my system doesn't support, that go to nothing. Still doubt the usefulness of this template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New deletion rationale Since the adaptation of the previous abandoned template to its new incarnation as a navbox, it seems unlikely that this template would be used on many pages, other than maybe Roman numerals, though that article already has sufficient representation of the subject, including the unicode characters. It is not likely that it would be of much use on other articles, such as those for specific numbers. It therefore would be an orphan, and should still be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relisting given the extensive change - Nabla (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets a rational purpose, hence should be kept. Argument that Unicode characters do not appear in your browser is insufficient for deletion -- many characters do not appear in browsers, we do not delete everything which uses them. Many templates are used in few places, that also is insufficient for deletion. Collect (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, there seems no good reason to keep items on the template that are on there simply because a unicode character exists, without any explanation for their otherwise arbitrary inclusion. (Specifically, the multi-character symbols that are in some typefaces for clockfaces - II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII have no special purpose on the template.) However, the template is not used anywhere, and it seems unlikely that it will be. The fact that 2 of the unicode characters don't appear on my system was not intended as criteria for deletion - it's just the only way I could refer to the unknown unlinked symbols.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used in any pages in the article namespace. In the User, User Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces, the template is referenced only in relation to discussion of its deletion. I realise this may seem like a weak argument given the recent redesign of the template, however its proposed deletion has been published on both the Mathematics Project alerts page and the Roman Numerals article Talk Page, the most relevant locations, with no interest shown in the demise of the unused template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 12 May 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:Westmeath hurling team managers 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 keep. Has to be more than just lack of entries. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Westmeath hurling team managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few links on template , delete with out prejudice to recreating when more articles are created Gnevin (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not simply delete all templates because they only have 4 entries, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 11:11, 7 May 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:Meath hurling team managers 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 keep. Has to be more than just lack of entries. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meath hurling team managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few links on template , delete with out prejudice to recreating when more articles are created Gnevin (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too few entries is not valid per se as a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 11:12, 7 May 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:Kildare hurling team managers 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 keep. Has to be more than just lack of entries. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kildare hurling team managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few links on template , delete with out prejudice to recreating when more articles are created Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same argument - as before (I decline to cut and paste) templates in the past have not been required to have at the outset a specified number of entries. Collect (talk) 11:14, 7 May 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:Kildare Hurling Team 2007 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 with no prejudice toward recreation. JPG-GR (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kildare Hurling Team 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few links on template , delete with out prejudice to recreating when more articles are created Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of entries here - the argument is that the creator of the template has not yet created the articles? Seems to me that this is an insufficient reason for deletion of the template. Collect (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are meant to be navigational aids , what use is 1 link ? Gnevin (talk) 12:47, 7 May 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:Mayo hurling team managers 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 keep. Has to be more than just lack of entries. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mayo hurling team managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few links on template , delete with out prejudice to recreating when more articles are created Gnevin (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason for deletion -- same arguments for Keep. Collect (talk) 11:18, 7 May 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:Hurling Team of the Century 2 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 keep --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hurling Team of the Century 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~As per WP:OR never heard of this before Gnevin (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Nom withdrawn, reference found Gnevin (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the GAA made up a special team of the century never to win All-Ireland medals in 1984. They definetly made a football one, I'm assuming there was a hurling alternative as well. Not sure if its relevant enough to keep or not though. Derry Boi (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even has a WP article. [1] articles galore mentioning it as well. Meets notability, has enough articles linked, no reason to delete at all. Collect (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where in the article , all i can see is GAA Hurling Team of the Century . That link doesn't show the GAA selected a 2nd team of non winners can you provide a link to that Gnevin (talk) 11:47, 7 May 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:IB rank navbox 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 delldot ∇. 00:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IB rank navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is unsourced, hypothetical (must vary a lot between banks) and generally vague and nebulous. I don't think it's helpful. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree that this could be dealt with much more effectively as a small mention in the text of one or two articles and adding a template provides limited value. Also agree that the rankings at banks do vary with some using the titles proposed (not many use partner) but alternatives including Directors, Senior Vice President, Associate Directors are also common. Additionally, the articles linked through the template have little to do with the role in investment banking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanrenewal (talk • contribs)
Delete In addition to the comments made by nom and Urbanrenewal, I am concerned that all these ranks are common for most industries, and not just investment banking. It is therefore a highly biased and misleading template. The only rank that is unique for the financial sector is financial analyst. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't even a rank, really, it's a job. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:02, 7 May 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:1985 Pittsburgh Pirates roster 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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1985 Pittsburgh Pirates roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same deal as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 6#Template:2008 Baltimore Orioles Roster, except this data was already in 1985 Pittsburgh Pirates season, where it belongs. Muboshgu (talk) 13:01, 6 May 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:2008 Baltimore Orioles Roster 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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Baltimore Orioles Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see why this exists. It isn't linked anywhere, the season wasn't any more notable than any other season. I replaced the active (2009) roster, which was mistakenly linked to 2008 Baltimore Orioles season, with this data, so really there isn't any reason for this template to exist any more. Muboshgu (talk) 12:49, 6 May 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:MP for Berwick 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 subst and delete, on hold at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#To_Substitute until it gets subst'ed - Nabla (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MP for Berwick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating for consistency - I just closed a similar discussion as "delete". The concern there (and, consequently, here) was that it violated WP:TMP by masquerading as article content in the main article namespace. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template. If {:Template:MP for Hexham} has to go - see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:MP_for_Hexham, then this one has to go as well. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete every entry could someone who knows how use a bot to replace {{MP for Berwick with {{subst:MP for Berwick Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I agree that this would be the best method of implementing a "Delete" decision - it would be inline with the relevant editing guideline. ----Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:24, 7 May 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.

Byrd Gang template 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 Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Byrd Gang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - The main article, ByrdGang, was recently deleted. I see no reason for a template to exist for something deleted on grounds of non-notability. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ByrdGang. Thank you, JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "This template is used in many articles"... I didn't realize four qualifies as "many" these days. There isn't enough content for a template, even if "Byrd Gang" was notable enough to not be deleted. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:51, 6 May 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.

NBA position 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 discussion was delete Erik9 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBAStartingCenters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NBAStartingPointGuards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NBAStartingPowerForwards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NBAStartingShootingGuards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NBAStartingSmallForwards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to this discussion this templates should of not been created. I created two of these and I think i shouldn't of created them. Black 'n Red 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that it is impractical to update b/c they change from game to game. The "as of" part does help, but the templates will not be up to date. Also it is not clear whether a player is starting at the particular position (a combo guard may start one game as point guard and the next game as shooting guard).—Chris! _ct 04:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They would be useful if they always updated, but I think a lot of work need to be done by deleting and inserting the templates to each players article each time a team change their starters. Depth chart on each team's article should be enough for current starters. Martin tamb (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See similar TFD's for MLB position templates and NFL position templates as those seem to be going in different directions. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basketball starters are too often not black and white, and players don't always play defined positions through a whole season. The template basically boils down to "players who started at a given position during their team's last game," which is pure overkill for a template. --fuzzy510 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, these are too difficult to maintain. Most teams will use several different starting lineups over the course of a season. (The Pacers actually used 32 lineups [2] during one season.) I'd support the deletion of the depth charts for the same reason. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this year Clippers also used 38 different lineups from 82 games [3]. This shows how difficult to maintain these templates on regular basis, not to mention adding them to each time a player is promoted to a starter and removing them after they demoted to the bench. I also agree about the depth charts. Martin tamb (talk) 15:28, 12 May 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.