Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4 edit

Template:PITmedia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally had a prod placed on it by NeutralHomer (prods aren't allowed for templates. He said the following: unnecessary template. Radio DMA and TV DMA templates exsist. Newspaper links can be added to the Pittsburgh page. . The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a few other media templates around here of a similar style--those should go too. Blueboy 96 17:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry about the PROD goof. First time doing that. :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template is unnecessary. I also put in tfd for PHLmedia and STLmedia as they are similar.--Spencer1151 (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - template duplicates radio and tv templates already existing. --BombBuilder (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep; these are not redundant categories, and may -- at least in some cases, ultimately supercede the older categories, provided they have the opportunity to develop. --Mhking (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mhking. --Son (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a better idea to keep the 3 types of media separate. For instance, replacing the smaller {{Pittsburgh TV}} in West Virginia Public Broadcasting with this bigger template only increases the clutter. –Pomte 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (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:River Plate (Uruguay) Squad edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

All the players in the template were almost red-link, The club information were very difficult to access, to update or obtain a full squad. — Matthew_hk t c 20:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also normaniated

All the template were almost a direct copy of :Template:River Plate (Uruguay) Squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), except Peñarol, Nacional which the main article contain a full squad, all other were useless. Matthew_hk t c 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the squad of Nacional. Matthew_hk t c 21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - clear utility as navigational templates as and when the articles are created. Simple, objective inclusion criteria. No reason why articles should not eventually be created for the majority of these links. Remember, There is no deadline. Happy‑melon 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Danubio FC Squad - I've fixed it. ESPNsoccernet is one of many reliable sources for Uruguayan football club squads. I concur with Happy-melon that all should be kept and updated as time allows. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These squad templates are less than useful if they are not kept up to date. If someone is prepared to do the work then keep them, if not delete. King of the North East 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It just unreasonable that update a template but the main article even did not have a squad list. Currently may find a good source to update, are Nacional, Danubio and Wanderers. Matthew_hk t c 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There many other football-team templates which players are almost all in red. I think that is not reasonable to delete a template only for that. If you want you can delete the rest (I added them expecting that someone would help me to complete them). VH1982 t

Comment User:VH1982, as a creator, you created lots of hoax except River Plate TP, create a hoax content on useful entry is not helpful. Matthew_hk t c 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, and I owe an excuse for that (May I add that hoax was not made on purpose). But what we are discussing here is different: we are looking into deletion of a template. By the way, I have edited some other River Plate-players' information. VH1982 t

Keep Juventud. I've updated that template now. I'll get the others as I have time. Jogurney (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your cooperation, I assume that the River Plate TP will not be deleted, could anybody confirm that? VH1982 t

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 Film2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A virtual duplicate of {{Infobox Film}}. It boggles the mind as to why exactly this exists (well, not really: it's not protected, and allows people to edit it and use it for whatever). — FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made this so it could be customized by users without administrative privileges. The protected version of this template does not allow the official website field to be referenced with ref tags. Jecowa (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References cannot be correctly built inside templates - the numbering will not display correctly when the template is implemented on real pages with other references. Delete if this is the only reason for the template's existence. If you have a useful improvement to make to the real template, use {{editprotected}}. If you need to experiment, use a user subpage - feel free to userfy this template if you need the history - don't forget to tell us if you do. Happy‑melon 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just performed a couple of tests with this templates and references within the budget and website fields of this template were numbered correctly with other references on the page. The reason this page was created was to get the ref tags to format correctly, but since this is not a good enough reason to keep this page, I will take your great suggestion to userfy this page to preserve page history. (I never would have thought of that.) Additionally, I'll make sure all the pages currently using this template look fine after the switch. Thank you for your help. Jecowa (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Userfy" means you can save the source code for your own purposes. User templates aren't to be used on the articles, especially not when they're edited versions designed to circumvent using proper edit-protected templates. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References display fine inside of {{Infobox Film}}, and appear to number properly as well any time I've used them (see Dreamgirls (film)). The official website field cannot be referenced because the coding only allows input of an html link to generate an external jump. I believe this was done to prevent people from adding fan sites. Is there really a reason an official website for a film would need a reference to prove it's the official website? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Happy-melon. Severo^TC 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. As per Happy-melon. ><RichardΩ6 12 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Happy-melon. JPG-GR (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Happy-melon. SkierRMH (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (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:Istanbul weatherbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized to {{Infobox Weather}}. Single use and redundant — MJCdetroit (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No uses in articles, unnecessary hard-coding. ><RichardΩ6 12 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned hardcoding (hopefully we'll have a CSD for these soon). Happy‑melon 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard0612. JPG-GR (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = redundant. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (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:Phnom Penh weatherbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete -- jj137 ^♠ 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standardized to {{Infobox Weather}}. Single use and redundant — MJCdetroit (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have subst:'ed its only use, unnecessary hard-coding. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've swapped that one out too for the standard infobox. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2008 (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:PowerQuest edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn with no !votes placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural listing for template for nn band; see related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Quest.. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Never mind, the page's subject seems to be worthy of inclusion after all, so this template can stay. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 4 January 2008 (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:Rick Short edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:CSD#G11 - only used for spamaliscious purposes. SkierRMH (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam template for a nn person whose article has been deleted at least 3 times. Can't see how to speedy this.. LeSnail (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Would have been used for spam, article that it links to has now been deleted. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Happy‑melon 20:00, 4 January 2008 (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:DSC edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team no longer exists, template is unused. — Severo^TC 01:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not a primary characteristic; can navigate from Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team. –Pomte 03:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. Happy‑melon 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, what the others said. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; unused & unlikely to be used. SkierRMH (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (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.