Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 14



Template:PortugalLargestCities

 * 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary and atypical template placed on articles about the 30 largest cities in Portugal. Additionally, "30 cities" could look like a rather random number of cities to be considered, if not for the fact that the creator of the template is from the Portuguese city of Póvoa do Varzim, which unsurprisingly appears in the template thanks to the 24th position it occupies on the list of largest cities. Template could therefore be rather COI'ish. Or, assuming good faith, it might just be a needless template. — Hús  ö  nd  21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn User explained reasoning behind template. Hús  ö  nd  20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep My friend, I've noticed of your biased and poor work in here, but as I've no pacience to debate or even correct the crap you are putting here. i just have to say wikipedia is not your backyard, the number was to be 50, like the united states (Template:USLargestCities). But in a list someone putted only included 30, so it was easy, thus the final number., i just needed to copy. Even if it was for Povoa (a name of a city that you can't even spell, so you are like a guru in this field), what was the problem?! As for Povoa de Varzim, there's maybe a new template, also basing on American cities, for urban areas. so it ranks even higher, 7th! duh! I consider this action of yours just vandalism and using wikipedia's policies for that. It is fun for you ? that's wierd, search a shrink... -Pedro (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this is one of your actions, in several, previous ones I was just a spectactor, one can clearly see by it, you are not assuming good faith, so read that link for yourself. --Pedro (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk page. Hús  ö  nd  13:03, 16 July 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:Champions league finals

 * 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 as the table stands better in the list article. I also not that it would have saved us all some time on formating the new table if the template was simply subst'ed there. Please ask me, or any admin, to undelete temporarily if you still want to do that - Nabla (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template is now redundant as a new table has been implemented at List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League champions. NapHit (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If anything that template should be implemented over the table YOU yourself created. It does not link to the season, nor is it as easy on the eye. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support New table is much improved and there is absolutely no need for a template which only appears in one article. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support: The table probably looks better, but needs to be worked on (countries shouldn't be linked to, links to UEFA reports would probably be better off on the scores, etc.)   A R  TYOM    00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think It looks worse... and I don't see the need for being able to sort? and UEFA reports can easily be added under the scores at the template for deletion &mdash; chandler &mdash; 08:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.   A R  TYOM    00:41, 15 July 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:Tang emperors

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1-off template that I have subst. Unused. --Thetrick (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not being used, can't see it being used either. Might be useful to present information if it was a subheading of a more broad emperors template... --Carbonrodney (talk) 14:13, 20 July 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:Airing

 * 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 - Nabla (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this even requires a TfD, but I'm not sure of what other discussion venue to take this to. I keep trying to format this template to use the Template:Future television system (which looks like this). The idea behind this is that the older version was nothing more than a statement of fact (that a show was airing) rather than being a cleanup tag. In several past TfDs on similar templates it's been said that such articles need to note that in information the article text, and not with a disclaimer template at the top of the article. Since Airing was likely being used on articles that cloud use cleanup related to being airing, and it was an easy to remember template name, I figured the obvious choice was to reformat. Since I keep getting reverted by one other editor, I'm bringing this here. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no need for the template as it appears now. It is a disclaimer (information may change), and provides information that should better be located in the article text (this is a currently running TV show). But to be honest, I don't see how your version makes it more like a cleanup template. Clenup templates (if needed at all) should be more specific, i.e. crystal. Anyway, discussions on reformatting a current template should better take place at the talk page of the template. --Kildor (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. One can deduct a series is current airing in the introductory sentence.  The future television template is useful, since it actually warns editors that some (speculative?) details may change as it gets closer to the series/season premiere.   --Madchester (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: See previous. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 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:Things-that-make-you-go-hmmmm

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Some kind of non-standard tagging template. Unused. --Thetrick (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, what is the relation with style (ambox)? --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ... and what is the purpose of this template, again? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- pointless template. - Longhair\talk 11:24, 21 July 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:The Black

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly redlinked navbox for a band that is only used on the band's page and duplicates the links on that page. --Thetrick (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, more usage needed to create a template. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:26, 16 July 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:The 2007 PGA Championship at Southern Hills

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unused 1-off template that only explains length and pars for the event. --Thetrick (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unused. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not necessary, it could be replaced by a paragraph (at best) or a table in the Southern Hills article. --Carbonrodney (talk) 14:14, 20 July 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:Thankyouforwaiting

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unused non-standard talk (?) template that indicates under-construction/editing has ended. --Thetrick (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, endorses article ownership, which is discouraged. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is already a template, actually templates, that serves this purpose...   --Carbonrodney (talk) 14:15, 20 July 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:Thank Poland

 * 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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unused template with no encyclopedic purpose. --Thetrick (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Normally I'd say userfy, since it's basically a (large) userbox, but the author stopped using it a few years ago. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 16 July 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.