Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 6



Template:Planetbox star detail

 * 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 redirect to. This functionality should be included in if necessary.. Happy‑melon 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This template is currently unused, however I am uncertain as to whether it fulfils the criterion of being unlikely to be used. However the use of this template in an article would encourage the duplication of values between articles, which increases the risk of inconsistencies between articles on related subjects. Furthermore, the template is part of an infobox about a given extrasolar planet and risks the growth of a large infobox containing values that do not directly pertain to the planet. If some of the properties in this template are thought to be desirable, they could be implemented in the already widely-used Planetbox star template. Icalanise (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template is intended for use when we have an article about an extrasolar planet but no article about the star it orbits.  In this case there is no concern about duplication. Spacepotato (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the intention then it should be stated in the template. And who is going to enforce this usage of the template? Icalanise (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - into Planetbox star // roux    15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into template:Planetbox star, even though it sounds unlikely to me that an article would exist for a planet and not its star.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not that uncommon, it has happened several times so far. (Star articles were later stubbed in) 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;We actually have a number of such articles now, such as WASP-12b, WASP-13b, and WASP-15b. Spacepotato (talk) 01:57, 10 December 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:Chaotic project class

 * 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 Thingg. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject doesn't exist; was deleted here. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * G8 as template dependent on nonexistant wikiproject, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:54, 6 December 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:US statements

 * 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 no consensus --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 12:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The template's title is "Historic statements relating to the United States", clearly a very vague and arbitrary title to lump things under. This template is ill-conceived, it's subject is overly broad. This what categories are for, and we already have them in place and working fine. This template should be deleted. TheCoffee (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I don't agree that the template should be completely deleted, however I do agree that it needs to clarify with more specificity what it contains. From what it seems like, the template contains famous American historial documents pertinent to the establishment of the United States, as well as Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation. It then lists many of the most famous speeches in American history, which are important. Perhaps we could rename it... Any other ideas? Happyme22(talk) 18:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename, Delete or Merge with... something or other, per Happyme22. -- Thin  boy  00  @085, i.e. 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep/Rename It does seem a bit vague and arbitrary, but I think the intent is good. A more specific classification or name of the template is in order. Then I would vote a strong keep after that. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 02:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: perhaps this template could be split into two, called 'Important documents in United States history' and 'Important speeches in United States history' (or something like that)? They do seem like fairly distinct categories. I'm not decided on whether there's a need for a template like this at all, but if there is that's a slightly more precise way to do it. Terraxos(talk) 05:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If no one can explain what defines this template, it is a standing invitation to violate the core policies of Wikipedia, such as NPOV, OR, and V. 271828182 (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Violates OR & NPOV; without clear and specific inclusion criteria (a discussion which would generate far more heat than light, methinks), this template just begs people to put in what they think is important. // roux    15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep - If we can tighten the criteria for inclusion, this would be work keeping--However, the criteria would have to be very clear and NPOV.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * keep The documents and speaches should be split, but this should stay. Zginder 2008-12-10T23:50Z (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:Student Aid Alliance

 * 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 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for a template; only transcluded on one page, and unlikely to be used on any others. Would possibly work better as a list or category. Terraxos (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd say WP:LINKFARM... but there are no links! Questionably a "template" at all. JPG-GR (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no there, there. // roux    15:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not useful for navigation.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:05, 12 December 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.