Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 13

< May 12	May 14 >

May 13 edit

Template:Dolly Rockers 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dolly Rockers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Dolly Rockers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links to a main article, one song and one related topic. Not enough to be useful as a navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Found a second similar navbox for the same group, so decided to nominate it for deletion (for the same reason) and just bundle with the first. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2011 (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 Yugoslav former political post 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Yugoslav former political post (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

cut-and-paste copy of template:infobox former political post. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2011 (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 bakersfield sports 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 Renamed. There are quite a few "Sports in foo" articles, but no prejudice against renomination, since it is still only used in one article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bakersfield sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

we don't need a special infobox for a single article (far too specific). Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer and Rename I recommend offering the infobox (under a different name) to one of the wikiprojects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Many city articles have a sports sub-article (such as Sports in Los Angeles, Sports in Tokyo, ect). To my knowledge, there are no infoboxs for that type of article. Except for the name (which can and should be changed), this template could fill that function.Skyman9999 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2011 (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:Latest stable software release/FormatFactory 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 Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Fleet Command (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/FormatFactory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The subject of the FormatFactory article is no longer being frequently updated, therefore this template is no longer necessary. (Actually, judging by the template history, it has never been frequently updated.) I have already integrated its contents with the article itself. Fleet Command (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until better/long-term alternative is found, In my re-writing of the page DVD ripper I may have been somewhat over-zealous in creating version templates for the listed programs, so that any version updates would instantly be represented on more than one page from only one update edit, reducing the number-of-edits/user-workload/server-workload/bandwidth-use/internet-power-use/et cetera/et cetera. From what I can see on the update log at http://www.formatoz.com/UpdateLog.html, FormatFactory may go 1 to 5 months without being updated.
If this has been considered elsewhere on Wikipedia as not frequently updated, and
if there is at least one regular wiki-editor who is both able and willing (NOT ME) to do at least double the update work (updating FormatFactory & DVD ripper and anywhere else the FormatFactory version may be listed)
then I can not think of any other reason why this template need not be deleted (and would change my vote to delete) (it just appears to me to be a needless duplication of wiki-edits before all version updates come to an end when FormatFactory is discontinued, which is when version template deletion would make more sense).--Lent1999 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it sure took me a long to decipher what you are talking about but I understand now. You surely have to improve you communication skills. Withdrawing nomination now. Fleet Command (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2011 (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:Charlton Athletic F.C. Reserves 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charlton Athletic F.C. Reserves Managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox for the managers of the reserve team of a football club is not really necessary, especially when it only has four entries. – Pee Jay 17:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 17:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:04, 21 May 2011 (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.