Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11

Template:The Fiction of C. S. Lewis

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 deletion, replaced. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by full bibliography: Template:C. S. Lewis. — atanamir 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. --Farix (Talk) 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, superfluous Naufana : talk 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as the Template:C. S. Lewis is more thorough and already has a section for "fiction" --Rockymountains 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Rockymountains[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:University of Iowa campus

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. Will replace with Template:University of Iowa. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a more-developed template called Template:University of Iowa. This falls under the second point made in what to propose for TFD. Can easily be replaced by the template just listed. SolonHawk 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not much of a help if there is a better template it can be replaced with.--SJP 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete ditto. Naufana : talk 01:00, 14 September 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:Lincoln City F.C. Player Sources

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably designed to be put in the references section on individual players' articles, but only links to general football websites, rather than specific webpages about each player - therefore it's not really of any use. Not currently used in any articles. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed. Punkmorten 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and not very useful. Number 5 7 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These sources are easily found without use of this template. Jogurney 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These sources are generic and non-specific. As such they are of little use to the articles and they can be found very easily without the use of this template. Woodym555 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless template.--SJP 23:34, 11 September 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 Speedy Delete as test page (G2). Non-administrative closing. --Farix (Talk) 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used only in one old revision; the code doesn't work, as it tries to call itself; and the intended purpose is filled by the new general character infobox. —TangentCube, Dialogues 17:11, 11 September 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:Pokemon reduce

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used in any article and can easily be replaced by {{non-free reduce}}. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template gives specific information on a site's terms of use for the pictures. And while, if we have a valid fair use claim, we do not have to follow those terms, it would be nice of us to. -Amarkov moo! 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused duplicate of Template:non-free reduce. No really needed. --Farix (Talk) 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there appears to be no functional use for it Naufana : talk 01:02, 14 September 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:ElectionResultsCA

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 deletion, unused. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. It refers to an election in january 2006. A "Future election" template could be created in its place if someone wants to. —Markles 14:28, 11 September 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:Infobox British Monarchy

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 deletion, author request. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned single use infobox. MER-C 10:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there, I only created the template yesterday! Nominating it for deletion 25 hours after creation is jumping the gun a little! As for its current orphan status, an editor removed it from British Monarchy in favor of a non-template version of the same info and we're currently discussing whether we're going to use it or not (plus I anticipate that it will be used elsewhere), so can we at least have a stay of execution until that discussion is sorted out? Thanks, Hux 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we decided to use a different template so we may as well go ahead and delete this one. -- Hux 06:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hux, until it can be determined, how and where else this is going to be used. —MJCdetroit 15:45, 12 September 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:Canadian Paper Money

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 merge. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{Canadian currency and coinage}}. People who are interested in the, say CA$5 bill, are probably interested in the Toonie coin, and visa versa. There are much overlap. These non-bold denominations in {{Canadian Paper Money}} all redirect to Withdrawn Canadian banknotes, which is already on the other more comprehensive nav box. The only things {{Canadian Paper Money}} has and {{Canadian currency and coinage}} doesn't have are the banknote series. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:03, 11 September 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:In Utero

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template, which merely displays the track listing of one Nirvana album, In Utero, seems unnecessary. No other template of its kind exists, and there isn't a whole lot of purpose in having this template exist, even for navigation purposes. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Too many other albuns got a template like this, and I know that I wasted my time to make a cool and easy experience for all wikipedia users. Try to see this one Template:Pet Sounds as a example.--César 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I just can't agree with this nom. If all the songs have articles, it seems like a perfectly valid navigational box.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Fyre2387's explanation.
Delete - Rather unnecessary. WesleyDodds 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Fyre2387. Dfrg.msc 05:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is no consensus for WP:MUSIC#Songs then as long as there are articles it works for navigation. If in the future some of the songs fail notability then the template should be re-nominated. Naufana : talk 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Browsing through the songs of an album seems like a good reason to have such a template. As for "No other template of its kind exists", so what. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means that it isn't a proper reason. Harryboyles 09:34, 15 September 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.