Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 29
December 29
[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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Bolivia Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
WP:FOOTY consensus is that these squad templates should only exist for major global or continental tournaments such as the FIFA World Cup or Copa América. King of the North East 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - If that's the consensus, we have to go with it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Where does WP:Footy indicate that the template can't be used for U20/U21 teams - especially a major tournament (the U-20 equivalent to Copa América)? TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - The concensus has been clear in many past CfDs that navboxes are not needed for youth tournaments (other than the Olympic finals). A large percentage of players in a youth tournament are not notable and most of the navboxes will be nothing more than a collection of redlinks inviting editors to create stubs on non-notable players. It's a bad idea. Jogurney (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
A collection of templates with only internal links
[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 all. RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Fb team Boskamp (b) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team SV Voorwaarts (rt) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team Walking Bout Company (y) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team SV Transvaal (l) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team The Brothers (r) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team SV Robinhood (r) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team FCS-Nacional (n) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team Jai Hanuman (n) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Fb team Inter Moengotapoe (M) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
These templates do not have any foreseeable use. Each of them contains only a single internal link (on some of them it is a red link), with no categories. The same purpose can be achieved by simply putting the link where the template would go. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't think of any possible purpose these templates may have. Unless, perhaps, you didn't have the square brackets keys on your keboard. Seems like a ridiculously complicated way of adding internal links, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all. I think you'd be hard-pressed to use these templates without the bracket keys, as they're also the keys used to make the braces for templates (at least on my keyboard). :P — Bility (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Navigational template that has one external link and six internal links with no relation to the subject. Orphaned. Rettetast (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, and consists of unrelated links. The subject of the template has had its article speedy deleted multiple times. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - It's a navbox, but it doesn't help navigation at all. It's possible the creator planned to create related articles for each link, and the current links were just placeholders. But the article it was apparently used in has been deleted, so there's no use for it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as currently pointless and likely to forever remain so. — Bility (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you should delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.71.211 (talk) 11:20, January 4, 2010
- 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 section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Used once, and that article will likely be deleted soon. No future uses likely because individual monster articles are clearly not notable or appropriate for Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Encourages users to create inappropriate articles about non-notable monsters from Final Fantasy. Perhaps there is a Final Fantasy Wiki it can be used in? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per number 6 of WP:VGSCOPE. Most FF wikis likely have their own (better ones) already. — Bility (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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.