Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5

Template:Infobox The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Decision was delete

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. No transclusions. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are book templates for this type of thing. --Shiori 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant; {{Infobox Book}} should be used instead.--TBCΦtalk? 02:00, 14 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Nredir

Decision was delete

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and it is hard for me to see where it would be used. --Grouse 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Useless. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 07:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would be for something like HR 4437, which could go by any one of a ton of different names, however it's a very amusing looking thing to read, sortof like "Template:Toomanyboxes" was. 68.39.174.238 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not at all transcluded, Tewfik^Talk 01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless, but this is one of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia for some reason. Then again, I probably just need sleep. Koweja 02:51, 14 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Infobox CR 676 Middlesex County NJ

Decision was delete

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An unused, single-purpose template for County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey). Every feature of this template can, and is, handled by {{Infobox road}}, making this template redundant as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --HowardSF-U-T-C- 03:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- NORTH ^talk 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why reinvent the wheel? Alansohn 17:27, 14 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Dingmans Campground Campsite Button Bars

Decision was delete

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is useless. It was made for a previously deleted article, and will likely have no use in the future given the confusing structure. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless and orphaned template. The concept of Category 5 campsites puzzles me... --Core desat 08:19, 6 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:FA Premier 100 Goal Scorers

Decision was delete

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft, and adds needless clutter to the bottom of already cluttered articles. We could have a near infinite-number of these kinds of arbitrary templates, and it does very little - what purpose does it serve to navigate between the bios of just those who have scored more than 100 Premier League goals? Qwghlm 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above WikiGull 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again as per nomination. Pointless. - fchd 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the 14 years the league has existed, only 12 players have achieved the feat. 100 is not arbitrary: 95 or 105 would be, or setting it so that it only lists the top 10 (unless the template was "Top Ten Goal Scorers"). As far as "cluttered articles", I only see one of the 12 articles this is used on that I would consider to be cluttered, even still, it is impossible to use templates and expect them all to flow well together when they are designed separately. This template could be modified to fit better with the other on that page instead of deleted. It is irrelevant that the user cannot find a need for linking between the 100-goal bios. I added the template to the FA Premier League of which someone entering Wikipedia may find useful to then be able to find arguably the most popular and/or well-known players of the league. Lastly, I find "Cruft" not to be a valid argument in and of itself and borderline offensive. --MECU≈talk 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When do we get the template for keepers with 100 saves in a PL season? Perhaps the template for defensive midfielders with 100 leg-breaker tackles? Or my personal favourite, bench-warmers with 100 warm up sprints in a season. ⁂veila# 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sarcasm isn't very civil. Provide me with the data and I would be glad to create some of those. Only the notable ones are worthy. --MECU≈talk 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a dangerous proliferation of these kind of templates. Actually it would be possible to make templates about everything, but we're missing the real point: templates like these would be really worthwhile to be kept only if they might ease the navigation process among strictly related articles. This is not the case. --Angelo 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, pointless template. Niall123 14:36, 12 December 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:LyricWiki

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as spam (G11). M a rtinp23 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the template reproduces the look and feel of Wikipedia sister projects. And more importantly, the template links to a wiki article with song lyrics, which are usually copyrighted. This is no better (from my point of view) than creating a template to point to specific torrents at PirateBay. Per our external links guideline, we should not link to sites we know break copyright. And while some lyrics may be fine, most are not. -- ReyBrujo 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is no longer used in any articles. Delete as orphan, and also per WP:SPAM. -- The Anome 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it might also be a good idea to delete Template:User_LyricWiki at the same time, since this serves the same purpose of advertising a website. -- The Anome 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the LyricWiki site contains lyrics from commercial artists and as such is violating copyrights. feydey 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Template created for spam, makes site look like it is part of Wikimedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - thanks to you all for clearing this up. PeterGrecian 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Ham and jam and spamalot! ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 07:17, 6 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Tactics of Kurdistan Workers Party

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki. Whisp e ring 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template is an orphan, not used in any articles. Francis Tyers · 10:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Erg. About as "divisive and inflammatory" as you can get. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:53, 5 December 2006 (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 page.