Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 17

< November 16	November 18 >

November 17 edit

Template:Olympic Games Jeu de paume 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus back in March, but this time it should be deleted. Not useful for navigation, not necessary in any way, in fact not used at all. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, a half template someone never got to finishing 2.5 years ago; if it's really that critical to use (which it's not), it would take like 3 seconds to remake it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. And I don't understand the template's raison d'etre: "jeu de paume" means tennis in old French, why was this template even created??? Baristarim 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. I have also nominated a few more like this, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 21. Andrwsc 04:09, 21 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Olympic Games Rackets 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus back in March, but this time it should be deleted. Not useful for navigation, not necessary in any way, in fact not used at all. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, useless and unused. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, a half template someone never got to finishing 2.5 years ago; if it's really that critical to use (which it's not), it would take like 3 seconds to remake it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. I have also nominated a few more like this, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 21. Andrwsc 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

speedy delete 1998 is the only years in this template.

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 page.

Template:Imidazopyridines 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, redundant to Template:Imidazopyridine. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused here. The version of the template that you didn't nominate contains more information (one more link, to ATC code N05), but I'm not sure what to make of the page that is linked. It looks like a long list of pharmaceuticals that is more expansive than the template, suggesting that either template is redundant to the list article? Can you comment? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:KTL 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, redundant to Template:MTRStations. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:GLOCK uppercase 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. I subst:'d this onto the template it was used on, as should have been done in the first place. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily it would be an editorial decision to remove this text from all Glock pistol pages. However there's a nested set of templates here, {{GLOCK uppercase}} inside {{GLOCK pistols}}, which is then transcluded into the articles proper. I don't believe this text is appropriate in the template; there's an argument, maybe, that it could go on the main Glock page. -- nae'blis 20:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inappropriate use of a template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the template. Could you give me arguments on why it is inappropriate? I’m open to it, I just want to know. If deletion is decided, what about including the text about uppercasing right in the {{GLOCK pistols}} content?
David Latapie (✒ | @) 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because including the text in the template makes it difficult to edit from the article, and impossible to modify to work better with the existing text in the article. subst:'ing it into the articles would get the text in there and leave the possibility of modification, but I don't agree with the phrasing of this template either. Do we really need a template for every company that names its products with idiosyncratic capitalization? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi David; I think a good analogous article would be SONY - the company is very consistent about using all capitals in their trademarked merchandise/publicity, but our article doesn't mention even mention it because it's a relatively minor marketing tactic (and the above all-caps version is just a redirect). I wouldn't personally oppose the text being included a mention on the Glock page, but you might want to bring it up on Talk:Glock first to demonstrate consensus. I think putting it on all models' pages is overkill, that's all. -- nae'blis 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note No comment as to the verbiage of this template, but it is being used to add a consistant message to many realted pages, that's what templates are for after all, no? It would also be trivial to make an edit link appear that would edit the template. If the argument is that the text should simply be added to the 25+ articles it is in, that just makes it harder for editors to "fix" things about it, as they would start a fork unless appiled to all articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 23 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Turkey Squad 2003 Confederations Cup 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Consensus on this issue has been reached elsewhere as well. --humblefool ® 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Squad 2003 Confederations Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unneccesary international template, for a fairly minor competition. ArtVandelay13 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To many. Matthew _hk t c 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the consensus at WikiProject Football is to allow templates for World Cup and current club only. Punkmorten 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 03:34 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep WhiteHero 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wearethebestfenerbahce 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deliogul 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There was another discussion on these types of templates here. There should be World Cup and club templates, and that's it. Allowing Euro, Confederations Cup, Copa America etc. templates will lead to footballer's pages being cluttered with unnecessary templates. For example, look at Shunsuke Nakamura's page. CanbekEsen 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Turkey doesn't participate in the Conf Cup every year you know :)) Baristarim 04:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Punkmorten. This issue was already discussed, btw. --Angelo 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete These are getting out of control. -- Mattythewhite 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clutter. As said, Nakamura's page is full... Sam Vimes | Address me 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Punkmorten. sʟυмɢυм • т •

Keep Willie200 c 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Punkmorten and CanbekEsen. Poulsen 13:34, 22 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Semi-protection proposal 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an announcement for a recent policy proposal to semi-protect all policy pages. First, tags like this are arguably not the best way to announce a proposal (indeed, we have RFC and the Pump for a reason). And second, the proposal-as-written appears to have failed already, although some compromises are being discussed. At any rate we no longer need this template. (Radiant) 14:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should never have been created or added to these pages in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 07:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposal is a bad idea. Septentrionalis 19:01, 23 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:This is a template 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool ® 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text of the template alone, "This is a template. This template serves no other purpose than to notify Wikipedians that that this is another template, part of Wikipedia's growing collection of templates," is a good enough reason for its deletion. This template serves no purpose. Except to add to the template namespace. Might even be a good WP:BJAODN. Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Preposterous 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN and delete. We've got a nice collection of templates, and it's good to know someone's keen to add to it, but... Grutness...wha? 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unneeded attempt at humor. Neil916 (Talk) 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Grutness and Fbv65edel that this would make a rather good BJAODN entry. ><Richard06 12 ^UW 17:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that is an odd template
Delete, and replace with a template saying "This is no longer a template.". Eugène van der Pijll 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Ceci n'est pas un template}}? (Radiant) 09:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Punkmorten 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN and delete. If a template is never transcluded, is it a template? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it can be substituted instead. BJAODN sounds good. TimBentley (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an attempt to get into BJAODN, so let's leave it out ;) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let's try to see the bright side of life. it's pretty funny in a existentialist way. :)) Baristarim 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. It's not obvious whether the template was designed to waste space, or to tag other templates that waste space; either way, it's been made now and we can't free the space up. --ais523 09:53, 20 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete. Not sophisticated enough to elicit more than a pained groan. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not funny enough for BJAODN. Now if it had been more like this:

That might actually have been a little funny, especially with the useful links. But it's not, so it's not. :) Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceci n'est pas une delete. Chris talk back 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Not a template. Jer10 95 23:45, 23 November 2006 (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 page.