Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 23

< June 22	June 24 >

June 23 edit

Template:ORW 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 Happy‑melon 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Less accurate version of {{Uw-nor1}}, not a test template, maybe a good redirect. MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom - don't see the need for a separate template. Terraxos (talk) 01:23, 1 July 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:SW starfighter 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 Happy‑melon 20:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SW starfighter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In-universe template superseded by Template:Infobox Fictional Spacecraft. No articles link to SW starfighter. --EEMIV (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reason as below. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 1 July 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:SW Craft 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 Happy‑melon 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SW Craft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In-universe template superseded by Template:Infobox Fictional Spacecraft. No articles link to SW Craft. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to a better template. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 1 July 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:Serbs Greeks 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 Happy‑melon 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbs Greeks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template. There's no reason for it to exist, because it basically includes stuff about each nation, not about the links between the two nations. bogdan (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't aid in navigation because it links primarily to articles outside the main topic (i.e. the seperate histories of Serbia and Greece, not relations between them). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused template with very little potential. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 24 June 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:Benjamint444 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 Happy‑melon 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Benjamint444 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Personalized GFDL image template with image metadata. Unused. Thetrick (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 24 June 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:Singapore Squad 2004 Tiger 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 21:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore Squad 2004 Tiger Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is not a top regional event. The old argument is , if every tournament have a TP, Ronaldo have 1X (Olympic, U-20 etc). — Matthew_hk t c 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the competition is not the AFC's top confederational tournament. – Pee Jay 11:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it was a top level event. Reso lute 02:38, 27 June 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:List of Box office number-two films (USA) 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 Happy‑melon 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Box office number-two films (USA) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template for completely pointless lists. #2 at the box office is about as arbitrary as it comes. And in the end, it doesn't tell us much. Some of these films were actually flops. Lists are only relevant if they tell us something and these really don't. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And somebody prod/afd the parent articles as indiscriminate info. --Thetrick (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Articles have been deleted so this navbox is now redlinked. --Thetrick (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will prod the articles. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and thanks for prodding the articles. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 24 June 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:Nor 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 to Template:OR-note Happy‑melon 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, unused version of {{OR-note}} probably a good redirect though. Not used in current systems. MBisanz ^talk 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{OR-note}} as redundant. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't redirect this to {{OR-note}} since such a redirect is hardly obvious, in fact what springs to my mind is the Boolean nor. JIMp_talk·cont 08:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{OR}}. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 27 June 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:Imgwarn 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 (db-policy)Lenticel ^(talk) 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't actually figure out the purpose of this template, looks like some sort of image spoiler warning, not used anywhere and only linked to one or two pages, delete as obsolete/confusing. MBisanz ^talk 09:12, 23 June 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:Nsvd-4 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 to Template:Uw-vandalism4im Happy‑melon 21:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nsvd-4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old, one-off, hard to read template, rather BITEy and poorly formatted, not used in current systems. MBisanz ^talk 06:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessarily unfriendly. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, which is the 'official' version of this template. (I wouldn't suggest deletion, as it might be in use somewhere, and it's not any more 'BITE-y' than that one.) Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 1 July 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:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - CAF First Group Round (Group 10 ACN) 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 no consensus to do anything, certainly not delete. Resolute raises a good point, but all the many templates used in the world-cup pages need to be handled together, not piecemeal. Happy‑melon 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - CAF First Group Round (Group 10 ACN) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Chad is not disqualified from FIFA World Cup. So they will still play at the qualification rounds of FIFA World Cup. However, no teams from the first round would directly qualify to the South Africa finals. Also, the qualified teams of second round is based on the first round. So there is no any meaning of this template. Raymond "Giggs" K o 03:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Cup (WC) and African Nations (AN) qualification tournaments are supposed to be one and the same tournament. However, Chad's disqualification from the AN means that their results will not be included for AN qualifying. As CAF show and state themselves, there is an AN version of group 10 which does not include Chad's results. This would affect the qualifiers to the second round of what is supposed to be a unified qualification process. This leaves the possibility of different qualifiers for the WC and AN second rounds, different ranking of the top 8 runners-up and different seedings. However, CAF have not fully clarified any possible changes in the qualification tournament.

Chad's disqualification could not only directly affect the WC qualification process, but the WC qualification page doubles as the AN qualification page, and is linked to from 2010 African Cup of Nations. As such a) this template is perfectly valid as AN qualification 1st Round Group 10, and b) it is valid to show it on the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)/2010 African Cup of Nations Qualification page. Aheyfromhome (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Ahey explained, there is a difference between the two CAF group ten templates due to the concurrent nature of the two tournaments and the fact that one team has to be excluded from the table from one competition's standings but not from the other. This is the simplest way to do that. Unless there's suddenly a change of heart from the various football governing bodies, this is the only practical solution to the displaying of the tables for the two separate but intertwined competitions. Grutness...wha? 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think that CAF has no right to do that. Because CAF is no right to disqualify Chad for the World Cup. The regulations from FIFA stated that the qualification stage of Africa Cup of Nations doubles the World Cup qualification. That's why South Africa, the 2010 FIFA World Cup host, still have to play in the World Cup qualification. South Africa's situation implied that the teams which play in Second Group Stage (or should say Third Round, according to FIFA), are based from the result of the Africa Cup of Nations, not FIFA World Cup. So not including Chad in the list implies that Chad is also disqualified from the qualification of World Cup, which CAF is no right to do. Raymond "Giggs" K o 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's exactly the dilemma. What the problem seems to be though is more the name of the template than its contents, if I'm reading you right. There are two separate templates for "CAF group 10", one for World Cup qualification and the other for ACN qualification. This one is for the ACN qualification group, though it makes sense to have it as well as the FIFA World Cup one even though they largely repeat the same information, simply because the competing teams are different in their degree of Chadness. This needs to be kept for that reason, though calling it something different to indicate that is nothing to do with World Cup qualification would make sense. Grutness...wha? 09:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no valid reason to delete has been made out. Deletion debate has been started in lieu of taking up the content dispute on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we creating templates useful in only one article? Subst and delete Reso lute 02:41, 27 June 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:-5 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 Speedy delete as a candidate for most pointless and badly-named template in the history of Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Provides an html link to an image on commons. Not used. Thetrick (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is this template use for? Raymond "Giggs" K o 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete Unused, unuseful and badly named (minus five?). JIMp_talk·cont 08:32, 24 June 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:CJwelcome 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 already deleted Happy‑melon 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user's personalized welcome for Australia and Adelaide. Probably should be userfied. Thetrick (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved this template to User:CJ/welcome, added a db tag to the original, and added a note on the talk page. I hope this was the right procedure. --Thetrick (talk) 00:40, 27 June 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.