Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31 edit

Template:English cricketers of 1701 to 1760 & Template:English cricketers of 1761 to 1786 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(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates only contain what is in Category:English cricketers of the 18th century and only manage to uglify the articles. I have been unable to establish what is especially significant about 1760/61 as a cutoff. — —Moondyne 07:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I can't see any compelling reason for retaining them. JH (talk page) 09:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No utility as navigational templates that cannot be better provided by categories. Happy‑melon 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use Categories instead. Johnlp (talk) 15:36, 31 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:WP DR 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 redirect. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was listed for speedy deletion by User:John Carter with the rationale "older project banner that is redundant to {{WikiProject Caribbean}} that seemingly isn't even included on any talk pages." This is not a speedy rationale so I am listing it here.. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The very recent enormous edit to {{WikiProject Caribbean}} by John Carter, the surprising lack of use of this template, and the lack of any apparent consensus on either WikiProject for the merger of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dominican Republic or Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean, makes me question the legitimacy of this deprecation. Both projects appear to be fairly inactive, and silence represents consensus, but I would like some reassurance from John Carter that there is some consensus for this restructure. Happy‑melon 10:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - True, it has been almost entirely my own action. I should note however that, to the best of my knowledge, the banner being considered for deletion has not in fact been removed from any pages. I know that I have not removed it from any pages myself. On that basis, I question whether this banner, which so far as I can tell has never been used, serves any purpose whatsoever. Also, unfortunately, I removed the inactivity tag from the main DR project page on the 29th. I get the definite impression that the project has been, for lack of a better word, moribund for some time, and that there may not be any active members to contact. Having said that, the new banner at least gives assessments, including separate importance assessments, which the old one didn't, which I think would make it more useful. However, I would have no objections to turning it into a redirect, if the project were to find in the future that it wished a separate banner. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's all I wanted to hear. If you've got the enthusiasm to get one or both projects going again, then good on you. Excellent template at {{WikiProject Caribbean}}, BTW - one of the nicest and most flexible project banners I've seen for a long time. Happy‑melon 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but don't delete. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{WikiProject Caribbean}} to permit Dominican Republic articles to retain their own banner if desired. Happy‑melon 20:59, 31 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:Gun Kata 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(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is essentially for 1 director and 2 characters in 2 movies. I can't see that a template is really needed for this, especially when there are links to everything except the characters on all of the other pages at some point. All of this, if really needed, could be handled with the "See Also" links at the bottom of the articles.. Slavlin (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can see no utility as a navigational template for a detail which is trivial for the films, and is thoroughly linked in Gun fu. Happy‑melon 10:32, 31 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:Schools in Waterloo Region 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(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be made into categories to match other Canadian cities. — Kevlar67 (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query By that do you mean seperating it into "Schools in Ayr", "Schools in Cambridge", "Schools in Kitchener", and "Schools in Waterloo"? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category, per nom. What that means is that each page refered to in this template has the tag [[Category:Schools in Waterloo Region]] added to it, which adds them to that new category. The template is then deleted and its template calls are removed. Happy‑melon 10:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Happy‑melon 14:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understood. In that case, I support the nomination and will begin to add the Category to the relevent schools.
- Edit: Actually, on closer inspection, it appears that these are all covered already under the categories Category:Universities in Waterloo Region, Category:Elementary schools in Waterloo Region,Category:High schools in Waterloo Region and the parent Category:Education in Waterloo Region. MelicansMatkin (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then, as redundant to those categories. Also delete the new category (which has only one article in it). Happy‑melon 14:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template has navigational value beyond that of categories. –Pomte 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How, exactly? Happy‑melon 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By linking them to each other directly so readers don't have to discover the categories, which do not match in scope. –Pomte 04:16, 2 February 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.