Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 1



Template:Toomanytemplates

 * 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. --Conti|✉ 17:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many template... The template. Totally pointless. BJ Talk 22:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless template The Llama! (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ...and a reasonable fix to a page having too many templates? Remove this one.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I assume this template is meant as a joke. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Used on one article only, also it's on the talk page - so seems a bit useless. The article doesn't appear to use too many templates, therefore seems a joke. FYI: This template has been TFD'ed before, with the outcome of speedy delete. The  Helpful  One  Review 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous deletion and common sense. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as an example of irony in action. Just kidding, Delete.  ;) Resolute 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Restrict to talk pages, and modify with instructions on using articleissues 70.55.86.100 (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. ☺    Spiby    ☻  10:51, 6 November 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:Simonyi Professors of the Public Understanding of Science

 * 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. --Conti|✉ 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Template is of use only in three article, two of which already link to the template's articles. 72.244.200.43 (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a useful way of seeing who was the previous holder of the chair or the following holder. It will grow with time. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither argument is persuasive: links exist already and in context to get to the other chair holder, and the odds are slim that it will "grow with time" unless by time you mean change once every decade or two &mdash; Dawkins held the chair for 13 years (until his 2008 retirement) and du Sautoy doesn't reach Dawkins' current age until 2032. The template is a waste of screen real estate. Thanks &mdash; 72.244.200.217 (talk) (same as 72.244.200.43) 08:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with this template but I think it looks good and is useful. I do not understand the term "screen real estate". As to your other argument, there is no reason to suppose that du Sautoy will hold the chair until he retires. He may move on as lots of people do. However, I suggest we both shut up and let others comment. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just clutter. This post isn't well-known enough to be self-explanatory. And given that only two people have held it it should be no problem to cover this within the article. Flowerparty ☀ 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Dawkins has made it a distinguished Chair, its holder is likely to remain one of the best known scientists in the UK. Its consistent with other templates for other distinguished chairs. cf Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Dimdamdocdim (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But look at how long it took before more members were added. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use a succession box for now and wait to use a special template until there are more people to put in it? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary for now. A template might be useful once there have been slightly more occupants of the office, but we shouldn't create one now on the assumption it will be needed later. Terraxos (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A succession box would do the job quite as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am now quite happy with the idea of a succession box, in spite of suggesting keep above. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:09, 9 November 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:Logo fur Aegean Yacht

 * 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. --Conti|✉ 17:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of template for fair use rational; should be replaced with a valid. –Sarregouset (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Its just a pointless template The Llama! (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless. ☺    Spiby    ☻  07:35, 5 November 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:St. Louis Blues roster navbox

 * 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   Maxim (talk)  01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Per previous TfD's; The information is available in the St. Louis Blues article, no need to have a separate template for a roster. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep See Category:Current Major League Baseball team rosters templates for an idea of what I'm doing. I am currently working for a roster of all 30 teams so I don't see anything wrong with it. Tavix (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thing is all 30 teams have had them and the consensus has been to delete them.—Krm500 (Communicate!) 19:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof? Tavix (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, at the beginning of this season we switched all the roster navboxes like this over to normal roster templates to avoid this kind of template cruft. For an example see St. Louis Blues roster. If you check the history they used to be all navboxes like you are looking to create but it was discussed an believed to be template cruft to have them so they were re-purposed to something else. Edit: Here is a link to navbox style before it was re-purposed. old style. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: We've talked about this many times before, as can be seen here and here among other discussions. And while were at it, can we get rid of Template:Anaheim Ducks roster navbox as well? – Nurmsook!  talk...  22:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussions you wlinked, one just says they are "redundant" and the other is talking about previous season roster templates. They are redundant, but they provide a different purpose than just the roster.  The roster lists the player and provides additional information while the navbox is purely a navigational tool that groups players on the same team.  For the previous season template, I agree, they are not useful, but that's not the purpose of the template in question.  This template will remain with the same name forever, with only the players and coaches changing day-to-day and season-to-season. – X96lee15 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But one problem is that they are rarely updated, I nominated a similar template a while ago and the result was keep&mdash;since then it hasn't been updated even once... —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is proposing to add an extra layer of maintenence to nearly 1000 articles and 30 templates.  Far, far too much work for very little value. Resolute 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The navbox provides an easy way to navigate between players on the same team, without having to go through the team article or the category. While there may have been previous TFDs on this topic, I think the stance should be re-evaluated. – X96lee15 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Template clutter of minimal value. Why is a player's teammates today important, but not his teammates yesterday?  Or last month?  Last year? Resolute 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To add: We've routinely deleted Stanley Cup and Olympic championship rosters as templatecruft: TFD1, TFD2, TFD3, TFD4.  This template, like the deleted ones, is little more than indiscriminate information, and a non-defining characteristic of the subject of the article. Resolute 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:EMBED navboxes should only include links to articles which would already reasonably be included in a perfect article on the subject the box is on. Every player on the team Joe Schmoe plays with would not reasonably be found on an article about Joe Schmoe. And as Resolute has mentioned, information in a navbox should be defining of the subject it is used on. The fact a certain player is playing with him does not define who he is. -Djsasso (talk) 14:55, 6 November 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 2007-08

 * 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. --Conti|✉ 17:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Superceded by Template:Champions League 2008-09, as we don't have one template for every season, only the current season. Punkmorten (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case why include the season in the title? Flowerparty ☀ 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and rename current season template so it always represents the current season. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually this is still in use on articles like FC Barcelona season 2007-08. Not sure how useful this is, though, given that the links point to the club pages. Flowerparty ☀ 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and rename current season template per comments at TfD:Template:UEFA_Cup_2007-08-- Club Oranje Talk 07:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. – PeeJay 22:43, 3 November 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:Young Frankenstein

 * 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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this template. Only the two main articles listed make up the main topic, while the rest are just the actors, one semi-related song, and redirects. TTN (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like a perfectly acceptable template The Llama! (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this template falls into the "redundant or otherwise useless" category. Na uf ana  :  talk  03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is only in use on two pages, where it is redundant to the cast lists already included. Unless we're going to include this on each of the actor bios as well - which would make for insufferable clutter - then there's no reason to keep this. Flowerparty ☀ 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This template was created by banned user User:Broadway91 (actually a sockpuppet)--is that relevant? (Incidentally, the template as presented is incomplete and needs additions to "Musical Numbers" and "Characters" I do not believe there are articles for most, if any, of the songs/characters, so they would essentially all re-direct back to the main article, of somewhat limited usefulness I think.) JeanColumbia (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes, if this was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user to evade their ban, it can be speedy-deleted under WP:CSD. On the other hand, some people seem to think it's useful above... but I would disagree, given the limited number of pages this is used on. Delete. Terraxos (talk) 17:54, 9 November 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:Paul De Million

 * 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 speedied. Flowerparty ☀ 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

self-made template by wannabe pop-star whose article Paul De Billionare (note the inflation rate!) has been speedied and whose unreleased albums are at AfD have been speedied too. JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, note that person couldn't even spell "billionaire". Punkmorten (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, perhaps there ought to be a template speedy clause that if an article is deleted any template directly related ought to be deleted as well. Na uf ana  :  talk  03:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (possibly WP:G8) as a template with only redlinks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:10, 2 November 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:DumDum Boys

 * 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! 08:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Contains only redlinks. Seems pointless to me. ☺   Spiby    ☻  11:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would say keep if it contained something worthwhile, but delete as it stands. Punkmorten (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not needed Tavix (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the template has been up since Feb. 2007 if someone were going to fill in those redlink they would have done it by now Na uf ana  :  talk  20:49, 1 November 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:Explain-inote

 * 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! 07:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is consciously self-referential and is of no relevance to any media except the Web version of en.wp.org. Furthermore, we shouldn't be encouraging editors to leave citations in hidden comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not good for an encyclopedia, what if someone prints the page? Punkmorten (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a doubleplusungood template. We should not be hiding refs or alienating read-only contexts. — CharlotteWebb 16:41, 6 November 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:nocite

 * 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! 06:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This template looks like complete nonsense to me, but I might be missing something. I realize it is very new but it doesn't link to any articles and I don't see how it could be useful. This is the only edit the creator (User:Marine.chief) has made and it very well could be a test. Na uf ana :  talk  01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a list of clever quips. Whatever purpose it was intended to serve, it evidently isn't a useful application of templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiquote? Never mind, they wouldn't take it, either.  Delete.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Userify. Likely intended to be an essay, not a template - move to user space.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I posted a courtesy message of the TfD to the creator I mentioned this option to him/her. I did not do it myself because I assumed it was not proper for users to unilaterally do such thing. Na uf ana  :  talk  03:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just redirected it to Unreferenced, because "nocite" does sound like a references tag. ViperSnake151 02:30, 3 November 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:2008 Boston Tea Party presidential candidate

 * 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 Flowerparty ☀ 00:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One-off template, formerly transcluded only at Third party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008, and unlikely to be used anywhere else. I've (manually) subst'd it there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not useful. Punkmorten (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment; before deletion, could someone copy sufficient history to ensure GDFL is maintained for edits to the template. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as I fail to see how it can be used non susbt'd Tavix (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are similar templates for each major party - each of which could only be used in this particular article or the Republican/Democratic versions of it - 2008 Constitution presidential candidates, 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, 2008 Republican presidential candidates, etc. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see your point.  I'm willing to withdraw the nomination, under the circumstances, but I don't think the withdrawal would necessarily go through without consent of the other two delete !voters.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Clarification for those who didn't see my comment on Arthur Rubin's talk page) My earlier comment was a suggestion to delist this template for the purpose of relisting all the templates at once. Failing that, Delete. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment; confirm Philosopher's statement above; I would be in favor of withdrawing this nomination in favor of a nomination of all the corresponding templates for political parties' Presisdential candidates. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the existence of other problematic templates does not make this one any less problematic. Hence, delete as an unnecessary template for content which is unlikely to be used in more than one article. Terraxos (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The page has been redirected to Third party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008, so deletion should not be necessary.--JayJasper (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, change to Speedy Delete. A redirect from a template to a (section) of a large article is wrong.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:32, 11 November 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.