Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 27

< November 26	November 28 >

November 27

Template:Linkuserpage

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 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a template to obfuscate links to the user namespace. [[User:Whoever|]] works just fine and is seven fewer characters to type. —Cryptic 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I (the creator) originally made this template for use in the table in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements since it's less keystrokes to change, for example, {{admin-abbr|Example}} to {{linkuserpage|Example}} than it is to change it to [[User:Example|Example]]. I guess now it's been substed the template isn't needed any more, so it can be deleted. Tra (Talk) 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was only originally needed for one function, why keep it? The aforementioned template is okay. αράχνη^{|μιλήστε|συνεισφορές|} 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, now obsolote. - Mailer Diablo 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom.--Wizardman 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nommie. --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom and creator. Kaldari 23:05, 30 November 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:Peeerreview

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 per CSD G4 - recreation of deleted material. M a rtinp23 21:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text verbatim of deleted article, title does not match content, content is itself almost entirely inaccurate and what is accurate is redundant with pre-existing article 2006 definition of planet. Template is not used currently, and is unlikely to be used in the future. Michaelbusch 17:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to speedy this? It's not even a template. -- Kicking222 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it falls under 'General' section of CSD. Otherwise regular delete does fine for me. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - what is this doing here? --T-rex 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - nonsense and orphan. Kaldari 23:04, 30 November 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:Infobox Prussia Province

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 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. Now replaced by Template:Infobox Former Subdivision. All pages previously using this template have been upgraded. --52 Pickup 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 03:37, 30 November 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:Infobox Historical Province

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 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. Now replaced by Template:Infobox Former Subdivision. All pages previously using this template have been upgraded. --52 Pickup 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 03:37, 30 November 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:Rodovid

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 keep, withdrawn by nominator and no delete !votes. --ais523 10:34, 29 November 2006 (U T C)

Template adds an external link to http://en.rodovid.org/wk/. So far as I can tell it is unused, so (a) unnecessary and (b) probable linkspam. -- Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's designed for subst; a list which contains all substs is at Special:Linksearch/en.rodovid.org (Special:Linksearch/*.rodovid.org is more useful for background, though). This seems to be linked to m:Rodovid, which seems to be some sort of proposal. --ais523 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- On checking the substs, it's used four times in mainspace, and could easily be removed as it only provides genealogical info. Perhaps I'm being dense, but why would we want to link to a genealogical wiki through a subst'd template rather than a simple link ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't one use of susbted templates to produce a simple link ({{tl}}, {{IMDB}}, etc.) --ais523 09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    - True. I suppose I can't really argue on the basis of not-used-much, and this is now a Wikimedia project, I'll withdraw the nomination. I suppose I'd better try to find places to use it now ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 28 November 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:Moby game

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 no consensus (or at best very weak keep) - the tfd tag had been removed from the template just after being placed, so, based on the opinions below, I'm defaulting to keep, without prejudice to a fresh nomination. M a rtinp23 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template adds a link to Moby Games, as well as an external link to the appropriate page to buy the mobile phone version of game from Moby Games. I would suggest that this is a) unnecessary, b) free advertising and c), a source of income for Moby Games, a mobile content company. -- Proto::type 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MobyGames makes no income of its own, and mobile games are only a very small fraction of what they cover. The site has cover scans and screenshots on a level Wikipedia forbids, plus otehr features such as complete inter-linked game credits and a store of magazine/website ratings converted into an average. These links are far more useul than links to GameSpot or IGN could ever be. --MartinUK 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MobyGames keeps lots of useful information - credits, screenshots, cover art - which Wikipedia cannot host. The consensus on WP:CVG was that every game should link to MobyGames, and I suggest to discuss it there before deleting the template. See also: Mobygames talk --Krótki 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above. a) MobyGames is not a mobile phone company b) did you read what MobyGames ( a project to docuement every signle game on every platform and offer that information to the public for free ) is before proposing to delete the template? c) the concensus on WP:CVG was that entries should contain links. --Flipkin 15:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons stated above. Also if MobyGames links are to be removed then why not links to other site like IGN and GameSpot? The reasons for deletion have no merit as they are not accurate. Sure any referrals to another site will provide traffic and thus some type of revenue which only helps to keep sites up and running. --Corn Popper 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons stated above. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. It's no different from IMDB links. ^wS;✉ 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aforementioned reasons. Stormwatch 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For excellent reasons above. - Phorque 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hardly worth a discussion, for the reasons stated above. - Sciere 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesnt act any different then if you put the link in manually or use the template. Salavat 07:31, 9 June 2007 (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:Infobox NCAA team

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 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template was only used by one article (Purdue Boilermakers), and I've modified that article to use the more common Template:Infobox college athletics. -- Engineer Bob 06:35, 27 November 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:Capacity

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 User:Tone. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to have been originally mistakenly created for an articel, then changed to something else. Currently unused anywhere and seemingly totally useless. It does have a great name and someone may be able to turn it to a good use. --68.39.174.238 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misuse of templates to the max. One word? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been quickly deleted, so this discussion can be closed. 68.39.174.238 23:54, 27 November 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:SgLink

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. Kimchi.sg 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template with only works with one website, SkipperGuide.com. I have reverted all the edits by Pschrey (talk · contribs) (the template's creator) as spam. Khoi khoi 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant link spam. Proto::type 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless spamming. - Mailer Diablo 16:09, 28 November 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:Infobox Canberra Suburb

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 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rendered obsolete by Template:Infobox Australian Place. All transclutions and non-historic links have been removed. --TheJosh 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. — Moondyne 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obsolote. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Ter e nc e Ong 12:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 03:38, 30 November 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.