Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 1

< July 31	August 2 >

August 1

Template:Launch vehicles

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 once articles are merged. JPG-GR (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Launch vehicles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox for a series of articles which are currently in the process of being merged into a single article. G W… 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once the articles have been merged. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 8 August 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:Hot Chelle Rae

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) 04:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hot Chelle Rae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Textbook WP:NENAN. Too soon; only one single notable enough for an article, only one album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems premature. If and when there are more articles relating to the band, it can be recreated. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 8 August 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:WWIIGermanAF

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) 04:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template created in good faith by a new user but is a small subset and a duplicate of Template:RLM aircraft designations so is not needed and should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very incomplete and redundant to other existing navigation box templates. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant and incomplete. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This template can aid navigation to notable aircraft in a particular role (the other template doesn't). If it was changed to make clear that it's not a complete list of WWII German aircraft and perhaps there were objective criteria for admission (e.g. >99 built or >9t) would it be OK ? DexDor (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt it as it would become subjective and similar role would be better covered under categorisation like Category:German fighter aircraft 1940-1949 or the whole family of Category:World War II aircraft of Germany. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 4 August 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:Famous Georgetown University Alumni

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) 04:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famous Georgetown University Alumni (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm looking for a consensus on this. I don't think it belongs as a template. The content is subjective, and it is only used on one page, Georgetown University. The template is just a filled out version of Template:Infobox Awards, and if we want it in the article, it should be included as that, rather than this template. The template's creator, meanwhile, was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and repeatedly uploading copyrighted images, and a second template they created is already under discussion, and likely to be deleted. Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This serves as a gallery for a SIX people who have graduated from the university. Such inclusion is limited, because the size of the pictures prevents many more alumni to be included. This creates a pov because it will be endlessly debated who gets to be included in "these 6".Curb Chain (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content Usage of Infobox Awards to house pictures is a nice way to concisely portray a representative sample of alumni, but we don't need a template just to house a template, which is the case here. —Eustress ^talk 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content Nearly every other university has multiple pictures of noted alumni on the college's main article. Although this template is slighty unique, the concept is not. It should be kept. At the very least, even if the template is adjusted, the content and concept should remain. KingKalla 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete, we already have an array of images in the main list of Georgetown University alumni. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:59, 4 August 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:Computergame or video game screenshot

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) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Computergame or video game screenshot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly redundant template to {{Non-free game screenshot}} ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 00:57, 8 August 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:Source coutts

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) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source coutts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused specific source citation. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomCurb Chain (talk) 08:32, 2 August 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:Sollingbahn

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) 04:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superseded by route map in infobox at Solling Railway. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 8 August 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:Solomin family originating

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) 04:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solomin family originating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Family tree covered in redlinks. Not specially useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no obvious use. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 8 August 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:Sleight

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) 04:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cite book invocation. Unused. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because it is unusedCurb Chain (talk) 08:30, 2 August 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:Signatures/Dunnsie-Poo

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) 04:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Signatures/Dunnsie-Poo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Signature of inactive user. No use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, not needed. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 8 August 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:Signatures/Plet75

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) 05:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Signatures/Plet75 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Someone's signature. No use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, possibly created by accident. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 8 August 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:Signatures/Not cool man WINOX

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) 05:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Signatures/Not cool man WINOX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Signature of blocked sock. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed, possible WP:G5 candidate. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 8 August 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:Sig-time

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) 05:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sig-time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inserts the two hyphens and four tildes that are inserted by the edit toolbar button. No use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any real use for this (and as far as I can tell, it isn't being used). Robofish (talk) 00:51, 8 August 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.

Old year navigation templates

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) 05:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Decade and Year List 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Simple Yearbox Year List 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are old (2006) templates which have been obsoleted by {{year nav}}, which generates the navigation at the top of all year articles. None of them have any transclusions (except for one on a talk page). No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 00:50, 8 August 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:Solar system bullets

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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solar system bullets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A marvellously intriguing (and unused) template. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original plan was to put it at the top of each planet's article - for easy navigation. Apparently no one but me felt that navigation was as important as being comprehensive. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to {{Solar System}} Curb Chain (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment probably not a good idea to have the two of them, but this one is *much* better as a navigation aid than the huge-fancy-colourful one. So merge into "Solar system", which is older and as a better name would be my number one choice. Second choice is to keep and use as intended by Ed Poor/Uncle Ed (possibly rename to "Solar system tiny" ?...). The mergte could be so that {{Solar system|tiny=yes}} would show this one?... - Nabla (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Were there some well-argued reason for why the heavenly bodies are unique across our entire encyclopedia in requiring some custom navigation devide then so be it, but I can't see any. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unique? Templates are common, so I presume you mean using at the top? Well... use it at the bottom. The real good thing is that it is not a overgrown-all-including template - Nabla (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If {{solar system}} is overreaching then simplify it. There is no need for some custom template which includes only a handful of links in addition to the navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Isn't that exactly what I've said? «not a good idea to have the two of them», «merge [...] would be my number one choice» - Nabla (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No. {{Solar System}} is a superset of this template and is already used wherever it is appropriate. No merge is necessary: this template can be deleted without adverse effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No?! «not a good idea to have the two of them» is not similar to «There is no need for some custom template [...]»? Or «merge [...] would be my number one choice» not similar to «If [it] is overreaching then simplify it»?. (take 'merge' not strictly as the technical expression but the concept of using one's code into the other). You disagree exactly with me in what? I agree this template may be deleted, I simply think it's content is better than the other one, and suggest improving the other. You apparently fully agree with that (delete one, improve the other IF I think so), so why insist that you disagree with... what? I am getting lost here.- Nabla (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Everything in the nominated template is already in the larger template. The smaller template is therefore entirely surplus to requirements. Whether the larger template is subsequently edited to remove some of its egrecious distractions is not relevant to this discussion. If you want to use "merge" in new and novel ways heretofore uneplored in TfD that's your prerogative, but round here it usually means "some unique aspect of the nominated template must be transferred to the target template" and that isn't what I feel is required (or even possible) here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, «some unique aspect of the nominated template must be transferred to the target template»: its clarity and simplicity. Second, comparing this to very similar templates is relevant, more so because (IMO) template is better than the other one and thus learning is always good. - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 15 August 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:Hapontastik

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) 05:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No mention of "Hapontastik" or "Hapontastic" in any of the target pages. Unused. Old (March 2008). Creator is indefinitely blocked. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G5 - seems to have been created in violation of an indefinite block. Not useful in any case. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 8 August 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 Kharkiv 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) 05:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Kharkiv squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the club is defunct Postoronniy-13 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obsolete, and doesn't seem to have great historical value. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 8 August 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 Ljubljana 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. JPG-GR (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Ljubljana squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Three blue links, two of which fail notability guidelines, is nowhere near enough to justify it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the non-notable articles are deleted. As it is, three blue links might just about be enough for a template, but not if they start turning red. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 8 August 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.