Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 22

< January 21	January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Template:Uw-tblock[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 Speedy delete per WP:UCS. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want a template in this case (threatening to kill someone) moreover a template that tells the user to come back once the block expired?? A (slightly) similar template was deleted through TfD a month ago.. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous discussion and because this really isn't a template situation. A death threat is a serious situation that needs to be handled on a case by case basis rather than through a template.--Kubigula (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kubigula. Happy‑melon 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it, per above. NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kubigula. JPG-GR (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a death threat is a serious issue that extends beyond Wikipedia and in some jurisdictions it is a matter for investigation by law-enforcement agencies. In such circumstances, adding a template to an offender's userpage is the least of our worries. Green Giant (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death threats are to be taken seriously, not just slap a template over. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's like putting a Band-Aid on anthrax. DodgerOfZion (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not necessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:54, 25 January 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:2008-09 NHL season by team[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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the articles it intends to link to will not be created until atleast June. Infact a number of them just fell to afd for WP:Crystal reasons. Delete until such a time as it is usefull to have. — Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that doesn't strike me as a very good reason to delete, when you know that it's going to be legitimately recreated in five months time. Happy‑melon 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we will need it soon 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep No sense deleting it now if it will be needed again in the near future. It already has two articles in it that are not WP:Crystal and are both relevant to the template subject and verifiable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I feel it is necessary to delete this template; it is only full of redlinks, articles that I deleted very recently per consensus at AfD. This template is used nowhere, nor will it be used in the next half year. And at Wikipedia, half a year is a lot of time. This template holds no value as an encyclopedic aid and it is not used at all. Maxim_(talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I stated the same for the article that relates to this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait until the result of this AfD, and then mirror the result. JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I said keep in both places, I agree that whatever the result, should be the same for both. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the article you have referenced gets deleted through afd or not should not, in my opinion, have any bearing on this particular template discussion. This template's primary function is to navigate the full season articles for a particular season, which mostly consists of the season pages for each team for the 2008-09 season. Since none of those pages exist yet, this template really is not necessary. The only active links for now are the links to the all-star game and the entry draft which should only warrant a see also section on the 2008-09 season page itself. -Pparazorback (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need for a navigational template to exist as a container for a sea of redlinks. This will be trivially easy to recreate when it is actually needed in several months. I get the impression that some editors are anxious to contribute to "structural" content on Wikipedia, which is why we see so many instances of future sporting event stubs that are little more than standard infobox and navigation box templates. What's the point of doing that now? Patience is a virtue. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keep it in your sandbox until a few months before the season, not six months before it is needed.Londo06 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy - Deletion makes no sense if it's a known need. If we don't like it in the templatespace move it to userspace and it can be moved back when more timely.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a currently unused template as no season articles for next season exist yet. This template can be recreated easily once next season's articles are created after this season is completed. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy - unnecessary at the current time, and as others have said, this can always be recreated when the articles it links between have actually been created. (Especially if someone Userfies it.) Terraxos (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and/or 'Comment Out' - It does seem pointless to have a template of red links. Alaney2k (talk) 14:46, 29 January 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:Rugby 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 debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Rugby union squad}}. — Bob (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looked through, has been edited towards an older template, fixed. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the revision history of Template:Rugby squad, it is still redundant given the presence of Template:Rugby union squad. – Pee Jay 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deprecated by {{rugby union squad}}. Happy‑melon 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the current edit is one that is in used on many rugby league and rugby union pages, also the same as soccer and cricket navboxes.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - [1] shows it's not used. Is redundant. - Shudde ^talk 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unused. JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - updates have been made that make this template deprecated for rugby union purposes.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through it doesn't show any relation to the current format out there, so it should probably go.Londo06 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:59, 26 January 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:Edinburgh current[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. нмŵוτн τ 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template was only used as a test, and is now EXACTLY the same as Template:Edinburgh Rugby squad. – Pee Jay 12:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination, just an older version of a template. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to use capitals :D. Happy‑melon 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it has been updated.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Shudde ^talk 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Londo06 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:59, 26 January 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:Munster Rugby current[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 deletion. I'm iclined to agree with PeeJay here, the style of a template is to be debated elsewhere. At the current moment we have a template that is not used and which is redundant to one which is. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Munster Rugby squad}}, which has been around since 8 Sep 2007. --Bob (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in line with other ones in existence for club rugby. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If a template for the Munster Rugby squad is to exist, it should exist at Template:Munster Rugby squad. The style of such a template is a matter for debate elsewhere. – Pee Jay 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeeJay. Happy‑melon 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with other ones out there. I have not replaced existing Munster one out of respect and also working on tweaking both templates.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - hesitant to replace existing Munster squad, which this is stylistically similar to. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is redundant - Shudde ^talk 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has changed since it was nominated and now follows in line with the other rugby ones out there.Londo06 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 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:Munster current[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 - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template was only used as a test, and is now EXACTLY the same as Template:Munster Rugby current. – Pee Jay 12:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete {{Munster Rugby current}} also as it redundant to {{Munster Rugby squad}}. --Bob (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just same as Munster rugby current but without the full names, other one to be kept. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have replaced it with a better one. I created it and I say delete it.CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Londo06 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:58, 26 January 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:Illinois Corporations[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 - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant with Category:Companies based in Illinois. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh my god what a cruft/OR/spam/trivia/vanispamcruftisment magnet! Happy‑melon 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This template could be more like Template:North and South Carolina Corporations and Template:Minnesota Corporations. I admit it is woefully incomplete (where is Deere & Company out of Moline, IL?, State Farm Insurance out of Bloomington, IL?, etc.). I think if cleaned up, this template could be useful. --Phirazo 06:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Land of Lincolncruft. DodgerOfZion (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved to the standard of the examples linked by Phirazo above. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is exactly the sort of things that categories and lists are better suited to handle. Fractalchez (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not the sort of thing that a template is useful for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:47, 27 January 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:Tempercalm[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 - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on this non-notable band was deleted and links orphaned, except for this template. The band hasn't released their first album yet and has had no press to speak of, so it's unlikely they will meet WP:MUSIC anytime soon. It's not needed, so it can be deleted. — KrakatoaKatie 07:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as cleanup. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:58, 26 January 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:Portuguese ethnicity[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 - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally listed this template for deletion but it has been restored by an admin who feels it would be better at TfD. It is a single-use template which transcludes the generic {{Ethnic group}} template and is only useful on the Portuguese people article. I don't think there is a justification for keeping this template when most similar ethnic articles make use of the generic template.. Green Giant (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and hard-coded version of {{Ethnic group}}. JPG-GR (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPG and nom. Happy‑melon 19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & JPG. SkierRMH (talk) 23:04, 28 January 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.