Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 9

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 no consensous, so no touchie for now. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I have suggested that this template be deleted because the term Major Wine Styles is too nebulous and inclusion/exclusion a matter of opinion, not fact. Please see the discussion on its talk page. --Portnadler 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Attempt to put content of an article into template. Template is incapable to cover all nuances and details while article is. Pavel Vozenilek 03:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Replace. Agree with proposed reasons for deletion, but agree with EvilSuggestios that renaming would be better. Changing it to a Varietals template would seem most useful. --Mikebrand 04:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. ^BlankVerse 20:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. Replacement template(s) do not exist yet and even after they do, there are definitely some "problem" styles that are neither varietals nor regional wines, so we'll likely need some place to keep those. Might make sense to rename it at that point, but deletion would wipe out some good contributions. EvilSuggestions 16:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 Speedy-Delete per G7 DemosDemon 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:WNGoogle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I, the author, request this template to be delete because I see now that it's use will never be desireable because of complications using Google to search for news on en.wikinews.org . I proposed it to fix some problems of Template:Wikinews, but I withdraw my proposal. Also, the template has not been used and is not used anywhere at the moment. See also: Template talk:Wikinews. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete The author may request a speedy delete on any page where she or he is the sole author. DemosDemon 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per above. Michael 08:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G7. I've tagged it on behalf of the author. --ais523 10:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 Deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suitly emphazi with a dash of Wikipedia:Interpret All Rules. Xoloz 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Emphazi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This deletion request is listed here for procedural reasons. For the deletion rationale, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suitly emphazi. I propose we discuss the deletion of this template in that discussion, together with the deletion of its explanatory page, Wikipedia:Suitly emphazi. Sandstein 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete regardless of MfD outcome We don't want in-joke cleanup tags that make no sense to readers and not much sense even when the joke is explained. --ais523 10:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it makes no sense. As above. Reywas92 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:High School Musical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template repeats information already present in the article High School Musical. The template has also been added to articles of the actors involved. This is clearly inappropriate, many actors has done more than 50 movies and it would be unfortunate if articles were swamped with one navigation box for each film. I suggest deletion. Thuresson 09:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong and Speedy Keep, alot a lot of movie/band/award/bio/etc have templates such as this one. This template is just the same. DemosDemon 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Also: such templates only serve as visual garbage distracting readers. Delete other similar templates as well. A common sense policy could be defined. Pavel Vozenilek 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, said visual garbage is prominant in almost ever band article, award article, state article, road article, country article, etc. Deleting them all, including just this one would be a very dramatic removal from this encyclopedia. DemosDemon 03:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The template could be subst'ed into the article on the movie, if the editors there like the pretty box. But otherwise there are no useful places to put this. So it should be deleted as a template that doesn't need to exist. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ^BlankVerse 20:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Reywas92 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Ed^{talk c E} 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaron 16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Musaabdulrashid 00:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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' // Pilotguy (Have your say) 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wiktionarydis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is just not a good idea. The link to wiktionary needs to be more obvious, as accomplished by the Wiktionary tag. It should not be hidden in the end text that is unlikely to be read. This proposal is partly motivated by a recent anon edit to {{Wiktionary}}, which added a note discouraging its use in favor of {{Wiktionarydis}}. This template was rarely used (and is now not used at all since I replaced all uses of it). Category:Disambiguation pages with links of Wiktionary should also be deleted if this proposal is accepted. Srleffler 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. ^BlankVerse 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, inconsistent with the usual disambiguation style. Note that the category can be speedied if the template is deleted. --ais523 10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Troyes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

And every template in Category:French Football Club Templates Every one of these is basically a redirect. They are used as a template but do not do anything useful. Template:Lens simply says [[RC Lens|Lens]] and it would be simpler if we just wrote what the subst of the template says instead of keeping and using the template itself. Also, every one of them was created by User:Mmorrow666, whose only edits are on the French football templates and results, and I don't think he is experienced enough to know what he is doing. Although it may seem many pages link to them, they are in a template. Reywas92 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge all That is, merge them all into each other. We don't need this many templates. I'm not sure whether to merge them all into one or whether to subst them all and get rid of them altogether. --ais523 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, redundant templates. All transclusions of these templates were a result of changes to Template:Ligue 1, where templates were used instead of piping. Oldelpaso 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all on grounds of extreme uselessness, though remember to transclude all instances before doing so. Qwghlm 10:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 nothing, improperly nominated. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:CTB minutes/07-1932-02 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

similar reasons as above. this and all CTB minutes are only a sentence used in one place. Actually, no place because I took the sentence in the template and copied it onto the one page and place it where it was found and pasted it there. These templates have always been completely pointless. This also includes Template:CTB minutes/04-1970-01, ‎Template:CTB minutes/05-1937-01, ‎Template:CTB minutes/05-1952-01, ‎Template:CTB minutes/07-1932-02, ‎Template:CTB minutes/08-1928-02, ‎Template:CTB minutes/09-1934-01, and ‎Template:CTB minutes/12-1966-01Reywas92 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I explained this to Durin here. These are not intended to be "single-use templates", and some already are not. For instance, Template:CTB minutes/10-1940-01 is already used on five pages. These templates prevent me from having to transcribe the text at the beginning of the minutes each time I reference them. I've already found them very useful - when I wrote State Route 76 (Virginia 1933-1970), some of the templates already existed from other pages. If these are deleted, the alternative (simply linking to the PDF with no description) will be less informative to the researcher who wants to locate the meeting minutes in person. If you can come up with a better way to keep the functionality (including being able to click on the redlink when citing one that has not been created yet), my ears are open. --NE2 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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.