Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 10

< May 9	May 11 >

May 10 edit

Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed-with-disclaimers 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 per CSD G7 (author request/consent). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused license template that duplicates {{self}}.. Kelly ^hi! 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't duplicate self. If it does we have a problem. The template itself is a hangover from fixing an old licensing issue.Genisock2 (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - is it still needed? I ran across it while standardizing license templates with the {{Imbox}} metatemplate. Kelly ^hi! 13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't been needed any more.Genisock2 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 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.

Exponentiation templates 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 deleted by various admins CSD G7. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:^/+ edit

Unused and not useful, see #Template:10^. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:^ edit

Unused and not useful, see #Template:10^. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:10^ edit

This nomination also includes everything in Category:Subtemplates of template 10^

Unused and not useful. Just use {{#expr:10^x}} instead. For example: {{#expr:10^3}} = 1000. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ~~after giving me a chance to replace them with {{#expr:}}s—not useful but not unused.~~ They can then go under Wikipedia:CSD#G7 since I wrote them. JIMp_talk·cont 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:British Military 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. Will redirect to the newer temp. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

superseded by Template:United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. ninety:one 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - obsolete template. Terraxos (talk) 01:09, 18 May 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:SCD 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 keep Daniel (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a clear violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. I only held off on CSD#T2 because it's mentioned in Wikipedia:Categorisation of people. Happy‑melon 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a "disclaimer" it doesn't appear in article namespace, which seems to be the gist of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.
As a cleanup template it was designed to be less agressive than, for example, {{CategorisationDisputedPeople}}, because the content of a category is not controlled via the category page itself.
I removed the "disclaimer" word from {{SCD}}. This could now easily be done, since the exclamation mark icon, and the template coordinated layout is more than enough indication where the content of the template starts.
The template's design and content was a matter of consensus, see archives of Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people

Based on the above points, keep. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Francis Schonken's points above. Not a disclaimer, but a potentially useful template for controversial categories. Terraxos (talk) 01:08, 18 May 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:ESPN California et al 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 keep Happy‑melon 11:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these template really necessary? Does anyone really need to navigate between stations of a specific format provided by a specific network.. Rtphokie (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have template nav boxes for everything else, including markets, radio formats and ownership templates. ESPN Radio is a 24/7 network (that stations cherry pick from) so I see it more useful than an if this were an individual show TfD discussion. The only issue I see with the templates is the part time/full time split. Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mr mark taylor. Rtphokie has been on a deletion proposing spree lately, and I'm not sure why. JPG-GR (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because radio articles tend to accumulate cruft over time. In this particular case, I dont see the value in this nav templates and am concerned that they wont be maintained and soon become cruft themselves. Can you two be more specific in the value you see in these templates other that "we have nav boxes for everything else"--Rtphokie (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more navigatable than this mess. Mr mark taylor (talk) 15:43, 11 May 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.

All forks of Template:current sport 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 keep due to improper noms Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added functionality to specify specific events and change the image in {{current sport}}. I think the other ones should now be phased out. — ViperSnake151 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current motor sport has already been nominated for deletion. Are there any more? --Kildor (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Temporal_templates. The below could all be absorbed into a properly comprehensive revised {{current sport}}.

Template:Current sport
Template:Current sport section
Template:Current sport-related
Template:Current sport-related2

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's OK to close this topic, pending revisions to {{current sport}} that can absorb the listed above versions. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close with no action. No template has been properly nominated here. --Kildor (talk) 21:05, 11 May 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.