Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Template:Police by country[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the creation of a number of templates, one for each region of the world (see them all on the Law Enforcement wikiproject's talk page) this template, with its endless debateable inclusion of some countries and ommission of others, is now entirely redundant. Concensus has been reached at the project, and all incidence of this template will be replaced by the relevant aforementioned regional one. — SGGH ^speak! 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please delete this. It is now obsolete and orphaned. --Aude (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Robbskey 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed and never used! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regional templates already existed, albeit with redirects, as argued in the last TfD. –Pomte 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant template. --Haemo 05:44, 20 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 section.

Template:Portuguese District Football Associations[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Was tagged as speedy, but not speediable. the speedy reason was "moved all this info into the Football in Portugal template so this template is no longer needed". The template is now orphan. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created it and I agree with the deletion. Joao pais 23:43, 18 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 section.

Template:Fewreferences[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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC) This strikes me as well-intended but nevertheless a bad idea. We have templates for articles with no references (incidentally the related processes are heavily backlogged). It is clear whether or not an article has references. It is not clear whether, as this template purports, an article has "sufficient" references; thus this will not actually help improving the encyclopedia, and could plausibly incite edit wars over whether or not the existing references are "too few". >Radiant< 11:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{refimprove}}; unless the nominator would like to delete that as well (in which case keep one, merge the other) What would be useful would be a template saying "I can't find that many sources for this article, could someone help me find more?" without ownership issues, and refimprove does that quite well. (The one time I used that template, when it was called {{moresources}}, it proved quite useful as more sources were in fact added to the article, and the template removed.) Is there any evidence whether people edit war over this? --ais523 17:18, 18 June 2007 (U T C)
Remove entirely The use of this will always be a matter of opinion, & its subject to overuse--it could appropriately go on 80% of the articles. This template will not help the very important current drive to add sources to unsourced articles; it will hamper it by confusion. W should be concentrating on the really important problems. DGG 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ais523 Sala Skan 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No reason people can't use both names, but they should refer to a single template. -- Visviva 13:14, 24 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 section.

Template:Countries of North Asia[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 page.

The result of the debate was deleted by someone else. Sr 13 06:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A regional navbox template for one and a half countries? I don't think that's very useful. It seems that the creator has developed a habit of creating templates just for the sake of creating templates. People have the strangest hobbies... --Latebird 11:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Creator removed deletion request notice from page twice, once after being asked not to do so. Obviously, he understands neither the structure nor the procedures of Wikipedia. Of course, that may not necessarily matter to the outcome of this debate. --Latebird 09:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very pointless navigation box. --Haemo 05:45, 20 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 section.

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. Andre (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Touch! Generations games[edit]

the Touch! Generations label is merely a marketing tool; they are otherwise unconnected, all developed by different companies. Being a Touch Generations game is not an defining characteristic of the game; they are only loosely-connected through a marketing brand. They also very from region to region, with the European releases including more "traditional games." It is not a useful navigational aid; although most are connected by touch screen usage, they come from different genres, such as puzzles, simulatins, brain training, and parlor games. Readers are unlikely to want to jump from games that have such different genres. The main Touch Generations list is far more useful. hbdragon88 05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remove, but keep the upper tier "Nintendo training", since those games have more in common.Tehw1k1 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is just a group of non-traditional games with not much in common. "Nintendo Training" doesn't look official, and there's no indication that the upper tier games should be grouped together either. –Pomte 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm seeing that all of the games on the template are published by Nintendo. Regardless, the category and list work fine. Delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I say published? I know they are, that's why I said "developed by different companies". hbdragon88 05:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's wholly irrelevant. If all of these games are released as Touch! Gens games, it doesn't matter who they asked to develop them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 26 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 section.

Template:Calendar reforms[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template implies a non-existent progression of calendar reform, past and future. It has already been removed from the pages it was placed on. Another editor has already expressed the feeling that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ([1]), and I agree: it should be deleted. — Jaksmata 04:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. This template is not NPOV. In addition, it's oversimplified. There are many calendar reforms. Some failed, some succeeded. In addition, this template is completely written from a Western point of view. Many Asian countries have their own calendar, such as the Chinese calendar, and the Indian national calendar. They too underwent a process of reforms. That being said, a nav box for Category:Specific calendars would be nice. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib)
Delete Inappropriate to have the World Calendar as the one proposal there, and the other three (too small a number) already link to each other. –Pomte 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeterminate I (authot) agree at all, especially that it is only about western reform. However I believe the succession of first three calendars is totally correct. And if I compare the succession template for World's Largest Passenger Ship I see that Liberty of the Seas is currently the largest ship in the world and that the successor of her (Independence of the Seas) is not even built. So how can sombody be shure that that ship is really going to be her successor? Beside world calendar has - I think - objectively written note. Is there any chanse that we add also other calendar proposals? --Janezdrilc 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the creator's comment above, this is just intended to be an inappropriate promotion of the World Calendar. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template violates WP:NPOV by favoring one reform. Listing multiple reforms would also violate NPOV because that would presume that the Gregorian calendar will be reformed. A ship that has not been built should not be listed as the largest. — Joe Kress 03:56, 19 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 section.

Template:Delaware TV[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template creates the impression that Delaware is its own TV market, which it is not. There are three templates which cover stations licensed in Delaware, based on the Instrastate format. KansasCity 04:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be anywhere for this template to be transcluded or useful, not List of television stations in Delaware. –Pomte 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it saves us from having to put in 3 or 4 templates per station article just to show which stations are available to viewers in Delaware. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:41, 25 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 section.

Template:FOX New Jersey[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Fox stations licensed in New Jersey. Station templates list cities of license - adding Philly and NYC stations deviates from this practice as they aren't licensed in New Jersey. KansasCity 04:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and the other flood of nomiations from this user. The template states that it lists stations serving NJ, and both of those do serve NJ. --ST47Talk 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the following templates are redundant to the Pennsylvania and New York templates. KansasCity 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i agree with kansascity. The templates are pretty much not needed. 68.249.180.118 21:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all below - No navigational value. They don't belong in List of television stations in New Jersey, so where can a reader see these templates to navigate with, other than being linked from loosely-related templates of other states? –Pomte 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comprimise? - Delete this, but give notes on the neighbouring templates (New York and Pennsylvania) that the stations also serve New Jersey? If that's unacceptable or not allowed, my vote will then default to Delete. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:44, 25 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 section.

Template:New Jersey TV[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template assumes that New Jersey is its own TV market, when in fact it is part of the New York and Philly markets. Stations licensed in New Jersey are allocated to their appropriate network templates, which list cities of license. KansasCity 03:50, 18 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 section.

Template:ABC New Jersey[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ABC stations licensed in New Jersey. Station templates list cities of license - adding Philly and NYC stations deviates from this practice as they aren't licensed in New Jersey. KansasCity 03:50, 18 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 section.

Template:CBS New Jersey[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no CBS stations licensed in New Jersey. Station templates list cities of license - adding Philly and NYC stations deviates from this practice as they aren't licensed in New Jersey. KansasCity 03:50, 18 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 section.

Template:Fox New Jersey[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Fox stations licensed in New Jersey. Station templates list cities of license - adding Philly and NYC stations deviates from this practice as they aren't licensed in New Jersey. KansasCity 03:50, 18 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 section.

Template:CW New Jersey[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no CW stations licensed in New Jersey. Station templates list cities of license - adding Philly and NYC stations deviates from this practice as they aren't licensed in New Jersey. KansasCity 03:50, 18 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 section.

Template:CBS Delaware[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no CBS stations licensed in Delaware. Station templates list cities of license - adding Philly and NYC stations deviates from this practice as they aren't licensed in New Jersey. KansasCity 03:50, 18 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 section.

Template:NBC Delaware[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no NBC stations licensed in Delaware. Station templates list cities of license - adding Philly and Baltimore stations deviates from this practice as they aren't licensed in Delaware. KansasCity 03:50, 18 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 section.

Template:PCWTX[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete, TfD process isn't needed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Championship Wrestling. Sr 13 06:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template created for a walled garden of one Wrestling federation maintained and created by one user [User:Cwmoneybags] who does not edit anything other than these pages [2] Darrenhusted 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles the template covers are up for AFD and they're failing WP:N and WP:V big time and will with 99% likelyhood be deleted, this should go at the same time MPJ-DK 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the articles. Nikki311 02:39, 19 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 section.

Template:PCWFWS[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 page.

The result of the debate was delete, TfD process isn't needed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Championship Wrestling. Sr 13 06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template created for a walled garden of one Wrestling federation maintained and created by one user [User:Cwmoneybags] who does not edit anything other than these pages [3] Darrenhusted 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles the template covers are up for AFD and they're failing WP:N and WP:V big time and will with 99% likelyhood be deleted, this should go at the same time MPJ-DK 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the articles. Nikki311 02:39, 19 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 section.