Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 17

November 17

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SPI fork (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

temporary notice template, no longer any transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:54, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a minor variant of {{OtherusesAlias}}, which was deleted following this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, this is one of the few (2?) hatnote templates in all of WP that deals with article sections that need disambiguation. All other hatnotes deal with the article as a whole, not individual sections. Hard to see how this isn't needed. Variation as a reason to delete? That's the digital version of guilt by association. The arguments for this proposal should stand on their own. Dovid (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Language/Coptic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This subtemplate was used only on Coptic language, where I replaced it with {{contains Coptic text}}, which is the usual way of dealing with this. Undocumented. Svick (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (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.
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 withrdrawn (?) JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toronto Blue Jays first round draft choices (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Prior consensus has determined that there was no rationale behind keeping these first-round draft pick and positional-style templates unless they were linked to an appropriate "main" article (a la List of Philadelphia Phillies first round draft picks and its navbox). I certainly wouldn't have a problem if such an article existed for the Toronto draft picks, but it currently doesn't, thus the deletion proposal. KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, It might take a while, so please make sure it doesnt get deleted beforehand. BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS)17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a hand, let me know; for the moment, it doesn't need to be like the Phillies draft pick list. Even a bulleted text list would be preferable to nothing at all. KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it together (List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks), all I need to know is if i need External links to be the source for the article, i just used wikipedia, and is the way it is currently set up OK, or does it need a different set up. Thanks. BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS)19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to Baseball-Reference for you, but it doesn't seem to match up; make sure that you verify the list against the source. I also added an external link and the template. KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks so much. Anything else to keep it from deletion BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I matched it up to the refrence, added the years to the template, anything else? BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per previous discussion here, not a notable team The-Pope (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per previous discussion here, not a notable team The-Pope (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a possibly useful template that I created a while back, but it hasn't really been used. There is a proposal for a bilateral relations notability guideline, which could mean this template is needed. But there is also {{notability}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessarily specific variant of {{Notability}}. There is no special notability guideline to link to for this topic, and if we start making topic-specific variants of {{Notability}} when there are not special guidelines for the topic, there could be thousands of these. --RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there aren't any specific guidelines for bilateral relations. Generic notability templates should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (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.
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. Creator indef blocked. -- œ 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EduCARE India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No content. Infobox template referred does not exist. Orphan. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:34, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historic regions of northern india (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Zero bytes. Orphan. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:27, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wide Area Networks in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no content in this template. Orphaned template. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:20, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MSingh cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Not likely to be used, when latest cabinet info is the one that is used in articles. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LS1952b-Sibasagar-North (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. No value. Not likely to be used. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:06, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allison Iraheta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's simply too early for this. The only entries are a single and an album. Well the album isn't even out yet. It doesn't come out until early December. And outside of Chris Daughtry, the rate of success of fourth place finishers isn't exactly high on American Idol. Let's wait until she either releases me or becomes notable enough for this navbox. User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:39, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biju Janata Dal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox with no navigation Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Aditya.krishnan.82 talk page item - his agreement that this template can be deleted, as the need was for only the other sub-items, like party colours, flags, etc. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (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.
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 merge. JPG-GR (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black Eyed Peas singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be redundant to {{Black Eyed Peas}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest to make to include it in {{Black Eyed Peas}}, having kept formatting. Really, the list of singles in {{Black Eyed Peas}} too big.--Andrey! 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Black Eyed Peas}} since they are clearly redundant. There are a couple of singles listed that aren't on the broader template. As navboxes go, {{Black Eyed Peas}} isn't excessively large, so a couple more links shouldn't be a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor band, not enough links to justify having a template. GlassCobra 01:39, 17 November 2009 (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.