Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 4



Template:Infobox Warhammer 40,000 Chapters

 * 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

The articles using this infobox have been recently deleted or merged. It is now only used on one article, which is currently at AFD. —  Pagra shtak  19:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - whether the remaining article is kept or not, we don't need a separate template to present what is essentially trivial, in-universe fictional information. Terraxos (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Soon to be unused, and infoboxen really shouldn't be used for fictional content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Only transcluded onto one page in articlespace (and that one will be deleted or redirected soon). Protonk (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:Big East Marching Bands

 * 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 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple NN marching bands redlinked. Appears in a small number of articles. Not useful. You said it Dad (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The fault here lies not with the template itself, but rather with the included entities. The template itself, nor its included entities, are no less notable than the analogs at Template:SEC_Marching_Bands or Template:Big_Ten_Marching_Bands, to name a few. Littledrummrboy (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Littledrummrboy's arguments above. --Friejose (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:EDASeeAlso

 * 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. "See also" sections should only contain links which are directly useful and relevant to the subject of the article. Adding general links that do not point to specific texts are not helpful. Any publicly-available papers that deal specifically with the subject of the article may of course be included, but a template is a poor way to do this. Happy‑melon 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The template is used to a add a bunch of general references to homehages on journals in article "further reading" sections. Basically useless, since they are not actually directly related to article topic, but rather to industry as a whole and only clutter the articles. — `'Míkka>t 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Say you are looking for more information on "Automatic Test Pattern Generation".  There are hundreds of articles, scattered through the journals mentioned.  It's not practical to list them all, and the most relevent ones depend on what sub-aspect you are interested in.  So the best thing to do is tell where to find more information, which is in the journals mentioned, and their on-line versions.  This is true not just for this topic, but almost all other EDA topics as well.  So I think it makes sense so have a uniform list of places to look for more information (which is what the see also section is).


 * For example, consider the article that was just edited to remove this template, circuit extraction. I think it is now less useful to the reader, since it gives no clue about the best place to look for more information.  Knowing which journals, and where they are located on-line, is a big help in my opinion.


 * If you oppose the use of this template, what is your suggestion for a reader who wants to find out more about the topic? LouScheffer (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (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 section.

Template:New Jersey temp

 * 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

Template is redundant and seems to have been a test. —  Jim Miller  See me 15:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - doesn't seem to be in use, redundant to New Jersey. Terraxos (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly some kind of test/inappropriately named sandbox. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2008 (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 section.