Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

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 debate was no consensus. However, probably should be in a category. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly useful template which has the potential to grow rapidly (as there are now two teams relegated each year). I'd be happy for it to be categorised if people think it's helpful, but it already exists in list format at List of former Football League clubs. Also nominating {{Football League clubs of Wales}} for pretty much the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

weak delete of the Former football league members template (categorising is probably a good idea, BTW), due more to growth problems than anything else, but keep to the Welsh one - that isn't going to grow out-of-hand any time in the next decade or two, and is a potentially useful link. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep The number of clubs on this list are not going to fluctuate wildly. There are only two teams promoted/relegated each season, and there is a strong chance that some of those being promoted from the Conference are former league members, which would mean their erasion from the list. It provides a useful easily accesible link between these clubs, more so than a category would. Keep to the Welsh one - for much the same reason.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2008 (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 debate was delete. Wizardman 02:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template has either a link to the same article SC Dynamo Berlin or a red link, with little hope that an article can be created for these red links Novidmarana (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete: It's a nice looking template but it really doesn't lead anywhere other then Dynamo Berlin. The information in the template is actually available in the article District organisations of the Sports Club Dynamo. Its only used in the SV Dynamo article and only because I put it there when I found it "abandoned". EA210269 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Information: This template was created by a user who is now blocked on the English and the German Wikipedia and whose contributions to commons are reviewed by several administrators. He's known as a POV pusher and probably a stalker (there are quite some facts for the later, we just can't prove the later completely). From a personal point of view this template is not needed. --32X (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. There needs to be a great culling of the SV Dynamo insanity, and this is as good a place as any to start. It doesn't really serve a purpose other than as a collection of redlinks, which ought to be hunted down with extreme prejudice if they are created. - Revolving Bugbear 18:47, 8 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Created with wrong name and/or not used.--ClaudioMB (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused templates that duplicates functionality of {{future}} and other temporal templates. The templates are unencyclopedic and provide no useful information to the reader. The message provided is simply a disclaimer and should not be used. Similar templates have recently been deleted ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) — Kildor (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Added {{future article}} and {{future golf}} to the list. The latter is used in one article. --Kildor (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. The templates are superfluous and needless proliferation. All articles are subject to change and new information. All articles which might have the template are completely capable of stating the contingent nature of the event, with references, and generally the topic is already obvious, based on the article title. Templates that take up prime real estate at the top of an article without actually adding to the content of the article.
{{Future article}} is laughably needless.
{{Future golf}} duplicates the functionality of {{future sport}}--thus redundant.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum All of theses future items duplicate the fuctionality of {{future}}, as described on the documentation page for {{future}}:

 To describe a future event without a specific template use: {{future|type= Event}}

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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 debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2008 (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.

[edit] Template:Infobox vessel type

This template, originally written by me, has been superseded and replaced by {{Infobox Ship Begin}}. — Haus^Talk 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nom - not in use. I would also support speedy delete of this under G7, as Haus has made the only substantial edits to this template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete and it also qualifies for a {{db-author}} if Haus would place it there. --Brad (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2008 (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 debate was merge. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This template is redundant to {{RoV}} and List of The Rose of Versailles characters. — Malkinann (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the list of has a couple empty sections, so doesn't exactly do much in the way of making the template redundent. What I don't understand is why there's two separate RoV templates: I think {{RoV characters}} should be merged into {{RoV}} to make a single navbox. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge to existing {{RoV}} per Quasirandom, with some trimming to remove empty/dead links. Collectonian (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Collectonian and Quasirandom. —Dino guy 1000 16:15, 8 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan template with no use.. Magioladitis (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan template. Seems to have exact code with {{Infobox TMNT (2003) Chronology}}.. Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This template is not used and not needed. I'm not aware of any articles that have titles that can't be represented in Unicode. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:35, 7 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This template is redundant to Template:Wrongtitle. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:32, 7 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused, obsolete blocking template.. MBisanz ^talk 18:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It sees to be something very old before standard templates were created. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per Magioladitis. asenine ^{say what?} 18:36, 11 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete nonstandard blocking template that is unused. MBisanz ^talk 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

'Delete per nom. It's orphan and no way to be used. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete non-standard depreciated blocking template.. MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It sees to be something very old before standard templates were created. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete nonstandard depreciated warning template. . MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 7 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the DISPLAYTITLE magic word to MediaWiki made this template entirely unnecessary. Instead of using {{Lowercase and underscore|new title}}, just use {{DISPLAYTITLE:new title}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just a thought, but for feature changes like this maybe we should change the template to some form of softredirect with a short explanation? Kind of like "hey there Wikipedian person, if you're attempting to use this then you probably don't know about this new magic word!" I'm not sure if it would be useful or not, but the idea popped into my head. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've already done something similar at Template:DISPLAYTITLE. Beyond that, I actually tweaked Template:Wrongtitle so that it automatically uses DISPLAYTITLE if possible and JavaScript as a last resort, so we can just tell users to always use Template:Wrongtitle and not worry about it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] May 7

[edit] Template:Former football league members

[edit] Template:Kinds of sport and sport associations of the SV Dynamo

[edit] Template:Fb competition 1993-94 Relegation

[edit] Template:Future music festival

[edit] Template:Infobox vessel type

[edit] Template:RoV characters

[edit] Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Chronology

[edit] Template:Infobox TMNT (2003) Chronology Start

[edit] Template:No unicode character

[edit] Template:Underscore

[edit] Template:Drmspeedy5-n

[edit] Template:Test5article

[edit] Template:Testg2

[edit] Template:Comment5

[edit] Template:Lowercase and underscore

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search