Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

October 21

Template:Art history1

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 Speedy delete as test, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Art history1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

5 year old user test. Frietjes (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (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:World Series Year

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 Keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Series Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Confusing and unnecessary template. Typing {{World Series Year|2010}} is not appreciably easier than [[2010 World Series|2010]], and the template's function is not immediately obvious without looking at the template. Using a simple piped link is more transparent and just as simple for the editor. Powers ^T 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete just like other "foo year" templates, like filmyear and lityear. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for restricted use and update documentation per this discussion. The limited use option is more than viable enough to keep it, but the {{mlby}}, {{wsy}}, {{nlcsy}}, {{alcsy}}, and {{by}} templates are only supposed to be used where their context is made clear in-depth (for example, in a keyed table), never in prose. The nominator's assertion that it is "just as simple for the editor" is incorrect, because these templates started at their redirects where their usage wasn't apparent from the name and have since been moved. The redirects are what are most commonly used, so if moving the templates back to the short-codes above is a better solution, then let's do it. — KV5 • Talk • 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The short codes are even more opaque to editors unfamiliar with the convention; that's hardly a good solution to the problem of arcaneness. I will admit, however, that tabular use is less problematic than use in prose, which is where I saw this template being used. Powers ^T 15:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a result of this TfD, I would fully support the removal of the template from prose. — KV5 • Talk • 17:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems simple and to the point. No reason not to have more tools than we need to do our jobs, even this one.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why delete a template that are used in thousands of articles?--NullSpace (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be substed before deletion. Powers ^T 15:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, but "can" and "should" are not synonymous. — KV5 • Talk • 17:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others reasons.Yankees10 16:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deleting will mean having to go through every baseball article and replacing the links. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the template can easily be substed by a bot before deletion. Powers ^T 02:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep don't make editing unnecessarily difficult for baseball editors, please. We've all been using this template and as you can see we're almost all in favor of keeping it. I'm not sure why the person who nominated this for deletion would consider it problematic...AT ALL...since you can still type [[2010 World Series|2010]] if you want to, but it's clearly going to make things more difficult for the rest of us. It's already making several of the baseball pages look ridiculous with the "this template is being considered for deletion" scattered across the articles. The sooner this is resolved and that stupid notification is removed the better. TempDog123 (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed my point. The problem is that a non-baseball editor unfamiliar with this template will see {{wsy|2010}} in the wikitext and have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Powers ^T 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A "non-baseball editor" will likely not be editing the baseball articles very much, and if there's a question about it can always ask on the discussion page for clarification. That's what it's there for. It took me less than a few minutes to figure out what that template was for when I started editing baseball articles. All you have to do is click on the Wikilink to figure it out. Please, have a little more faith in the intelligence of your fellow editors. TempDog123 (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a matter of intelligence. The point is that I, or anyone else, shouldn't have to go digging around to find out what {{wsy|2010}} means just to parse the wikitext. Powers ^T 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This logic appears to be refuted easily because many templates have complex wiki code that new editors have difficult with. Would you be comfortable nominating Template:Cite web for deletion under similar grounds? Even I have issues with that one, and I have seen articles completely borked because of some one not using it correctly. --LauraHale (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - People will have to dig around to figure out what any template means. They'll have to dig around to figure out what [[2010 World Series|2010]] means if they're unfamiliar with wikilinks. It's part of the learning curve. You seem to be the only person on this long list who has a problem with it and so far the only thing you've achieved is making all the World Series articles look ridiculous with this tfd warning right in the middle of the World Series. All editors seem to be in favor of keep so the sooner this is resolved and that eyesore of a warning is removed the better the baseball articles will be for it. TempDog123 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The "eyesore" has been missing for a good 24 hours now. Your eyes can now rest easily. Anyway, the difference between this template and others is that the content is integral to the articles, rather than being additional content that can be glossed over. Seeing "He hit a home run.{{cite book ... " is still intelligible even if you have no idea what {{cite book}} is; but "And in {{wsy|2010}} he hit a home run" is not readable if you just gloss over the template. Powers ^T 14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the opposite: Cite book is less intelligible than this template, as a preview will clearly show what is involved by looking at the text it generates and it can easily be found by looking at the surrounding text. Given the BLP related citation problems often appear in Wikipedia:Articles for creation, many people are unfamiliar with the concept of citing, have difficulty using citation templates, and frequently make the page render incorrectly when they use citation templates. At the same time, these templates do not make preview easy as the text created around them does not appear in the area near where the citation is found in the wikicode. This particular template for deletion does not appear to be used by new editors, appears to be used in specialized articles where contributors would likely be familiar with the topic, and the text is easily seen in preview to demonstrate how it acts. --LauraHale (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - As someone mentioned below, by that logic almost all templates should be deleted because they are inherently not intuitive. Really, it's not that hard to figure out that "WSY" stands for World Series Year if you click on the link. Certainly not anymore difficult than parsing the rest of the wiki markups. Regardless, there's no point in continuing to belabor this. The input into this discussion would seem to indicate that this is only a concern for you, certainly not for the many editors on this page who have voted keep. TempDog123 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Didn't I just explain why this one is different than other templates? Powers ^T 20:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad timing. Indifferent to what happens to this template but now is not the time. Marcus Qwertyus 04:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please resolve this quickly. Regardless of the outcome, this is an incredibly bad time to have this discussion (i.e., during the World Series). It is almost certain that many more casual Wikipedia viewers, as well as many casual baseball observers, will be looking at these sites. The dozens of "deletion" notices in every paragraph make the articles nearly impossible to read. This is likely to discourage many potential Wikipedians from becoming part of the project. I am making no comment on whether or not to delete the template; it makes no difference to me. But to the OP Powers, I believe you used very poor judgment in your timing. — Michael J 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note — I've set the Tfd template to tiny, but it's still fairly intrusive. The TfD is leaning toward keep, however, so I might recommend disabling transclusion altogether in the spirit of WP:IAR. Anyone being led here by the TFD notice, to begin with, will likely be biased toward a keep given the last game of the world series is on monday (iirc). --slakr^\ talk / 05:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: If confusion for new editors was the reason, we'd probably not use most templates as they can be confusing. WP:IAR in relation to precedent. Wide scale usage by many, many contributors shows apparent community consensus. Also, timing is bad. No problem with re-opening later. --LauraHale (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this about timing? Powers ^T 13:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're right in the middle of the World Series! More people are looking at World Series articles right now than any other point in the year. And they look ridiculous with this TfD warning all over the place. Please resolve quickly. Jpo (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BROKE. Swarm ^X 07:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's useful. Tiptopper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Useful how? Powers ^T 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all of these baseball editors obviously find it useful. The whole point of templates is to make life simpler for editors, so a page (including this one) that does that is worthy of being kept. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's logic would, it seems to me, suggest all templates should be deleted. Uninformed editors won't know what any template means, that's not grounds for deletion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:47, 24 October 2011 (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:Infobox Kansas album song list

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) 00:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Kansas album song list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Kansas Kansas song list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2011 (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:Infobox Boondocks Season 1

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) 00:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Boondocks Season 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Boondocks Season 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Boondocks Season 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:The Boondocks episode list templates

episodes are using previous and next links, rather than full season lists. Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2011 (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:Infobox BS District

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) 00:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox BS District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all the districts are also islands, and are using template:Infobox Island of the Bahamas or template:Infobox islands instead. Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Looks like {{Infobox Island of the Bahamas}} may also be redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:46, 25 October 2011 (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:Infobox Bangladesh Political 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bangladesh Political Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all Bangladesh policital parties are using template:infobox political party, not this. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:46, 25 October 2011 (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:Infobox BTCC driver

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) 00:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox BTCC driver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to template:Infobox BTCC record and template:Infobox racing driver. Frietjes (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Looks like {{infobox BTCC record}} may also be redundant to {{Infobox racing driver}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:47, 25 October 2011 (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:USRD essay

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 move to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/essay. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USRD essay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WikiProject "vanity" template for labeling a handful of userspaced essays that, by the template's own wording, are "not a part of the standards the project promotes", but "ideas for members to consider". That's what the project's talk page is for. We hardly need a proliferation of project-specific Wikipedia header templates, the only difference between which is the project name. {{Essay}} works just fine. ~~So, delete.~~ — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Changed to Move to projectspace, e.g. {{Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Essay}} or whatever. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep specifically refers to pages linked off Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Essays, and deals with essays specifically relating to USRD topics. Just like we have specific kinds of essays. --Rs chen 7754 20:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this template is specific to certain kinds of essays, while {{Essay}} is not. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, but move to project space~~. Keep, however if the result is to delete, please move to project space. –Fredddie™ 00:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it functions as a template... --Rs chen 7754 00:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So does Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/nav, but it's in the project space. Clarified what I meant anyway. –Fredddie ™ 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure exactly what the nominator's argument is intended to be here. The nomination begins with a comparison of essays to talk pages. Yes, project talk pages are one place where ideas for members to consider are discussed, but essays and talk pages are not the same thing. Essays are intended to serve as a reflective statement of one or more Wikipedians' views on some aspect of the project. They can be used as helpful reference points in a debate but are not a debate in and of themselves, distinguishing them from a talk page. Following this train of though suggests that the nominator feels that the {{essay}} tag in general is redundant to talk pages, which may be how he feels, but isn't likely to be supported by a broader consensus.

The end of the nomination heads in a different direction and suggests that the reason for the nomination is that the nominator feels that the {{USRD essay}} tag is just a needlessly specialized copy of {{essay}}. As to what harm its existence causes beyond mere redundancy, the nominator is rather silent, other than a brief, unexplained mention of "vanity" and a desire to avoid numerous project-specific header templates. I think it should be noted that the content of many of these essays is relevant only to those directly involved in the project. Tagging them as such benefits those looking for essays on road-editing-related topics, and allows those uninterested in them to avoid them. I think there's arguments to be made that a system of project-specific essay tags could be used for a greater scheme of categorizing essays written to address editing of particular facets of Wikipedia.

I'm rambling a bit more than should be allowed in a TFD. Ironically, my comment here could nearly be considered an essay. So, I'll wrap it up and say keep, I guess. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scott5114, who put it far more eloquently than I could. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, just to clarify: I can't find anything else like this on the entire system. Zero projects other than the US Roads one appear to be creating their own special, redundant variants of {{essay}}. I was not comparing essayd to talk pages; I simply observe that "ideas for project members to consider" is what the project's talk page is for, and does not create some rationale for creating a new template that, yes, "is just a needlessly specialized copy of {{essay}}". This template also basically just duplicates the functionality of categories; that there are essays on different topics is a good argument for subcategorizing them, not for customizing heading templates for a handful of pages per project. There is no rationale for labeling essays with new templates for each project at all. It being "redundant", as Scott5114 himself put it, is enough reason to delete it; being "harmful" is not a prerequisite. That "the content of these essays is relevant only to those directly involved in the project" is a large part of why this template is not needed. That said, all kinds of project stuff isn't strictly necessary and no one really cares as long as it stays in projectspace. I've changed my !vote, above. However, "a system of project-specific essay tags" is emphatically not needed "for a greater scheme of categorizing essays"; categories and templates do not intrinsically have anything to do with one another. I guess if someone wanted to propose genericizing this template, e.g. to {{Project essay}}, with project name, image, etc., being parameters, I probably wouldn't care. I don't have a strong opinion against visually labeling an essay as being within the scope of some project (though we already have talk page tags for that...). I just don't want to see a pointless proliferation of {{Snooker essay}}, {{Cetaceans essay}}, {{Art deco essay}}, etc., etc., etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You rather people that are joining a project not be able to get project-specific advice from members? An essay is an opinion, and a talk page is for discussion. Two different things. Redundancy in of itself is not a big rationale for deleting, and is a very subjective observation. I wouldn't consider it redundant myself, as it does something not achievable with another method. Also, what harm comes from each project having its own specific version? You'd probably only become aware of it browsing A) The essays, or B) the project. Other than that, unless there is a category, there is no spill-over effect into other parts of the encyclopedia. It can't be used to completely vandalize pages like many other templates. Your deletion rationale is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Well.... unfortunately it serves a purpose. (Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies both ways. Precedents are part of progress) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is wholly redundant to {{essay}}. If users wish to tart up their essays with their project affiliations they can add userboxes to them. This sends the wrong message regarding the editing of user essays as it implies that the essays thus tagged are owned by a particular Wikiproject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then that would be your problem for not interpreting the English language correctly to somehow construe ownership from the sentence "This is an essay which contains the advice or opinions of one or more members of the U.S. Roads WikiProject.". Nothing in the template provides any indication that the project "owns" the essay; it merely indicates that it was written by and for that project, and that applying the essay on roads to... say... a medical topic... would not have much value. Or would you disagree? (I also note that the essay template says "By one or more wikipedians". Sounds exclusive and maybe some IPs would be offended) Maybe we should just tag everything that has USRD essay with just essay. Confusion fixed, right? No. That's backwards logic. But let's do it anyways because apparently they are redundant to one another. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant; per Chris C.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to project space if consensus is to delete, per Scott and Fredddie. V C 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Template serves a useful purpose. I would be also happy with move to project space. Dough 48 72 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
move to projectspace as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2011 (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:Infobox Arizona State Parks

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) 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Arizona State Parks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox South Carolina State Parks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by template:Infobox park. Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:49, 25 October 2011 (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:Infobox 10,000 Things

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 per author approval. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 10,000 Things (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and could be replace by a standard quote box. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and no rationale for useCurb Chain (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i am the creator. i placed this at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded, and i didnt know about quote boxes. if this is better in quote box format, i support its replacement with one... I have created a quote box now, which is identical. Since quote box seems a much better format than an infobox, at least by my initial impression, i ask for this template to be Deleted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2011 (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:Indios de Chihuahua squad

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) 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indios de Chihuahua squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

current squad navbox which has not been updated since 2009. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2011 (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:IndiansOfAmerica

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 Speedy delete as test, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IndiansOfAmerica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and empty sidebar many years in development. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template should never have been created without functionality.Curb Chain (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (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:Incumbent series

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) 00:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incumbent series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and replace by other succession templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2011 (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:Incat 74m catamaran

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) 00:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incat 74m catamaran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by template:incat catamarans. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2011 (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:Imagetable

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) 00:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imagetable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused copy of template:table. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (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:Illini Hockey roster

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) 00:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Illini Hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2011 (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:Weather box/Chart

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) 00:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weather box/Chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Weather box/num (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not used by template:weather box, or by any template or article. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2011 (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:Valenzuela City weatherbox

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) 00:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Valenzuela City weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

there is already a weatherbox in the Valenzuela, Philippines article. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (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:Las Vegas Wranglers staff

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) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Las Vegas Wranglers staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, and information is already in Las Vegas Wranglers. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (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:LarsenCopyright

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) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LarsenCopyright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused tag. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2011 (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:Lafooter

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) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lafooter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and questionable inclusion of topics. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the links are red. The entries don't seem to have any basis except from original research;not usedCurb Chain (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2011 (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:Lady and the Tramp

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) 00:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lady and the Tramp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates two films, and convention is to not navigate by actors (or voice actors). Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a member of WP Disney, I agree. Powers ^T 19:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Against MOS and standard procedure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:53, 25 October 2011 (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:FC Arsenal Kyiv

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) 00:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Arsenal Kyiv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

does not refer to existing pages except Managers (but there is a template "FC Arsenal Kyiv – managers"); unused in articles. Alex (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2011 (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.