Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 16

< December 15	December 17 >

December 16

Template:Always Sunny

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Always Sunny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 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.

Template:Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 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.

Template:The Latest Buzz

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Latest Buzz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking twoarticles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 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.

Template:The Buzz on Maggie

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Buzz on Maggie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PANCAKEMISTAKE 22:37, 26 December 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.

Template:Doc Martin

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doc Martin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 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.

Template:Post disco-footer

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post disco-footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A collection of unrelated wikilinks. Appletangerine un (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poor WP:POV reason. These articles have some references about post-disco relation. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this whole post-disco concept seems to be synthesis of the sources' offhand use of the term to refer to simply anything that occurred after the disco era. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "simply anything that occurred after the disco era". Grunge, Post-punk, Indie rock, Neue Deutsche Welle and other styles are also from post-Disco era and they're not included - your comment is incorrect about that, it's not a template with random wikilinks. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I have just recommended "Keep" in the AFD, this template is another matter. I believe that there is material to discuss a "post-disco" era in an article, but the articles being connected via this template mostly do not have strong association with that era. Some of them, such as Chicago house and Techno, reflect the end of the post-disco period, while others are styles that spanned through multiple periods, one of which happens to be the post-disco period. So these just aren't sufficiently related to make a meaningful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Following genres are primarily connected with post-disco (see article about post-disco, see references, etc): Chicago house (80s), Dance-pop (80s), Boogie (80s), Techno (80s), Italo-Disco (80s), Electro (80s), Dance-Rock (80s) - 8 items, navbox is needed. I would recommend we should delete "Alternative dance" (contemporary 00s genre), because this is a generally irrelevant genre to that era. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2: Also, boogie is a subgenre of post-disco. Early italo-disco, house, techno and dance-pop are strongly associated with post-disco movement. [1] ISBN 0922915695 [2]. electro/alternative dance is fewer related, but still it is related to post-disco. I guess there are enough articles to justify a navbox. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 13:32, 27 December 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.

Template:Beautiful People

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. Wizardman 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beautiful People (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox contains links to just two articles directly related to the television series; the Beautiful People (UK TV series) article itself, and the Beautiful People characters article. The other links—to Simon Doonan, the man whose autobiography the series is based on, and the actors who star in the series—are just there to pad the template. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The cast shouldn't be there per consensus reached at WP:ACTOR. The are well interlinked otherwise. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 21:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like many other regulars at TFD, I discount the cast member links in this type of navbox because the template will not be in their articles due to the large number of such templates that an actor could accumulate. Combine that with the fact that the character links are all redirects to a single article, and the end result is that there not enough distinct articles being linked by this navbox to make it useful for navigation. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 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.

Template:CB Girona

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) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CB Girona (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned "current roster" template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 16 December 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.

Template:Blackfamilytree

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template. Could it be of some use in one of the Harry Potter articles? Black family is a redirect. There is already a different family tree on Harry Potter (character). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it unused, the whole effort smacks of original research and, if I dare say it, fancruft. A fictional family tree focusing on the main character is pushing it, but to construct one for minor characters, including such unnamed distant relations as "Male Crouch" and "Female Longbottom", simply descends into trivial detail. This type of material can happily have a home at Wikia; it does not need to be here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 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.

Template:Bagginsfamily

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) 06:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. Could be substituted if it is of use somewhere? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst into List of Hobbits under a new section for the Baggins family at the end of the article. Though, isn't this a copyright violation of the tree found in the Appendices for the Lord of the Rings novels? 76.66.197.2 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at List of Hobbits, it appears that the substitution recommended by 76.66.197.2 above has already been performed, so there is no need to keep this as a template since it is unlikely to be of use in any other articles. --RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 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.

Template:Slammy Award Winners

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slammy Award Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The subject is too vast in scope to be included in one template as there are numerous awards within the Slammy Awards ceremony (some of them being one-off awards as well), while this template packs in all winners without any distinction. Θaks ter 14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with more appropriate templates. For annual awards, it is typically best to either use succession boxes, or create distinct templates for each major award. The way awards are handled for other entertainers, such as musicians and actors, can serve examples for these awards. --RL0919 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On titles I understand, on fake awards handed out at a fake award show there is no reason. Plus what is said above, I feel it should be deleted.--WillC 06:18, 26 December 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.

Template:Infobox CD Information 2

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 relisted to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Template:Infobox CD Information 2 by User:Phantomsteve. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CD Information 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is incomplete. Mayuresh 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 23 December 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.

Template:Arborwiki

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. The consensus is that not enough links from this wiki meet the external links guideline to warrant having a template. Because some links may, the existing transclusions will be substituted into regular links. These can be kept or deleted per article editors' consensus, with assistance from the EL noticeboard in case of disputes. RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The site ArborWiki does not meet WP:ELNO #1 or #12, because it does not have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." and does not generally "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." and hence the site is unsuitable for an external link template. Also, many of the instances are being used inappropriately, see Manchester,_Michigan#External_links for example.

(Note: I've removed the category it adds to pages, Category:Entries with pages on Arborwiki, and will cfd that once this nom has closed, for simplicity. Or possibly the closing admin here can speedy it as maintenance, if this closes as "delete". -- Quiddity (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We shouldn't be encouraging links here, per WP:EL. Them From Space 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added this, and I'd like to keep it around for a while. Here's the rationale.

Arborwiki has a history of stability, with four years worth of contributions and over 4000 articles. Only a fraction of those are notable enough for Wikipedia, and only those articles are cross-linked back here. For those articles that are notable enough to cross-link, the Arborwiki pages provide locally relevant information like details of hours, street listings, telephone numbers, and other references relevant to a city wiki. The site is hosted at the Ann Arbor District Library, and has contributions from news organizations including AnnArbor.com, a local newspaper.

In addition, the cross-linking between the two sites provides an opportunity for Arborwiki editors to surface and verify details that do qualify for Wikipedia standards but which have not yet been incorporated into the Wikipedia pages, thus providing additional useful information to both systems.

There may be edits to the template that make it more suitable for the dozens of other city wiki projects; perhaps folding this in under the standards of Wikipedia:List_of_templates_linking_to_other_free_content_projects would be productive, rather than doing a hasty delete. I've started by asking for the project to be added to the Interwiki map, and once it crosses that threshhold of usefulness and review, we can look at adapting it to better work here.

Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. TfDs run for 7 days usually, so that should be enough time to get some kind of consensus at interwiki map. Some of the uses are still very inappropriate though, and would need to be removed regardless (Iggy Pop, the one I noted above, etc.) I'd recommend going through the 40+ uses and doing some cleanup of those that are not currently providing any additional information. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A template elevates the link above common scrutiny. Just add a normal link like everyone else, and let each link be justified like every other external link. If a precedent is set to keep this, everyone will want a template to safeguard their external links. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth does a template, acting as a convenient shorthand, elevate a link above common scrutiny? I don't see this as any more of an issue as with any other Wikipedia:List_of_templates_linking_to_other_free_content_projects efforts, or even things like the IMDB shorthand which make your fingers less tired when you want to type less. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vast majority of articles plainly fail WP:EL (admitted by the creator above). There is no reason whatsoever to make a template. If some tiny amount of Arborwiki links to meet WP:EL, then they can be normal external links, but a template is totally inappropriate. 2005 (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of articles in Arborwiki don't even exist in Wikipedia, 2005, and thus they won't be linked to at all. The template was extremely handy because of the category it created which assisted in quickly identifying how far along things were and what might still need to be worked on. If you have some technical suggestion for making the automatic categorization process less onerous - e.g., perhaps creating a first class Arborwiki page that was not subject to hasty deletionism - where a "pages that link to this" report would provide suitable tracking. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates don't exist to make things handy for editors to write more pages. Use a pendil and paper if you need to. None of the pages I've seen linked to on the Arborwiki are remotely valuable. In fact, it seems like a better idea to spam blacklist it. As for an Arborwiki article itself, that is a whole different issue. If it is notable for an article, fine, if it is not, fine too. That is irrelevant to the issue here, which is an unhelpful template linking to things that should not be linked to. 2005 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The links created by the template fail WP:ELNO, both #1 and #12. Not a valuable resource. If a handful of links can be found that are of value, those could easilly be linked without this template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:32, 18 December 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.

Template:Wings

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. Wizardman 23:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently orphaned. Should either be included in articles such as Wings (band) or deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename to Template:Wings band, (delete as orphaned, rename if kept) 76.66.201.33 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 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.

Template:Wisdom

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 Userfied to User:Drini/wisdom per request Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently orphaned. Could be userfied? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please userify under my userpage and delete it.-- m:drini 22:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as requested by creator. From a cursory review, this material seems fine for user space, but does not need to exist as a template. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 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.

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T)

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 relisted to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T) by User:Phantomsteve. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (Val di Noto) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be redundant to {{World Heritage Sites in Italy}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 23 December 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.

Template:Wswiki

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 per author request Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template with a broken link. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete i am the creator of the template; it was used for linking to wswiki descriptions when the socionics type articles existed. they were deleted by due process as part of a deletion discussion on the socionics article. if there is sufficient attention to socionics type articles in the future the template can be recreated if necessary; at the moment it is useless. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:14, 16 December 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.

Template:XD5

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 relisted to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Template:XD5 by User:Phantomsteve. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XD5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:XD4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This appears to be left over from some experiment? It doesn't appear to be needed anymore? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like a forerunner of WP:PROD. Note Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is marked historical and failed. ... I say that WP:XD needs cleanup, what with left over categories and templates lying about. 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:42, 23 December 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.

Template:Xavier bowl games

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. Navbox with just one link is not very useful. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xavier bowl games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned navbox with only one link, which is a redlink. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is conceptually valid; the real problem is that Xavier stopped fielding a football team in 1973, so there's no article on the former program and no likelihood of expansion within the template. The Salad Bowl itself folded after five seasons. Weak delete for now, but if there's ever an article on the football program it'll need to come back. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written a new article at Xavier Musketeers football, so keep. Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the link wasn't red, one link does not require a navbox or allow for a navbox to be even minimally useful. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 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.

Template:Y-DNA Phylogenetic Tree

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 Keep, with the understanding that it will be put to some use (and perhaps reformatted). No prejudice against it being relisted for deletion in the future if it continues to be unused. RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Y-DNA Phylogenetic Tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with many redlinks. Not sure if it is of any use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect many of them will be filled in gradually--and they're all real enough.~
Keep My intention is to use this as a readily available phylogenetic tree. The problem is the syntax here is incredibly difficult and ad-hoc. I'm thinking rather of converting it to a {{chart}} template. That's much more flexible and simple. I can also do this for the Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) tree as well. It's a bit tricky, but once it's started it should be rather easy to do ...

• Archæogenetics ^TALK 08:53, 23 December 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.

Template:Yesterday date

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 Redirected to {{Day-1}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yesterday date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which depends on a Userspace template. Should be entirely moved to template space, merged with something else, or deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant to {{Yesterday}}. --RL0919 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And redundant to {{Day-1}}. Thanks, I updated the doc for Yesterday. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:13, 16 December 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.