Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 4



Template:2002 USA number one singles

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  05:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete This template fails one of the basic premises of navigational templates: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. These songs are not related to one another. Per Navigation templates: "Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" My answer would be no. We already have succession boxes that list the song before and after the song became number one with exact dates it was at number one and a link to the list of number one hits from that year. This template has no dates and uses numbers behind the wikilink which I presume to mean the number of weeks it was at number one. Aspects (talk) 18:59, 4 October 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:Csdref-a1

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  05:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unused template and unlikely to be used template. -- Suntag  ☼  17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, redundant to {{db-a1)), {{db-empty)) or {{db-nocontent}} - however it's probably a good idea to create templates in the form {{csd-a1}} as redirects to the equivilent db template if they don't already exsist. NullofWest Fill the Void 23:41, 11 October 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:DPN

 * 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 per nom. I just had to. delldot  &nabla;.  05:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unused template and unlikely to be used template. -- Suntag  ☼  17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. :P No, just kidding. Actually, this is a very dangerous template -- making the dreaded and unconstructive "per nom" argument even easier to plaster all over AfD. Glass  Cobra  07:40, 5 October 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:Hwh

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  05:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unused template and unlikely to be used template. -- Suntag  ☼  16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't see any real potential; usage would probably be WP:OR anyway. Glass  Cobra  07:39, 5 October 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:Infobox SPT station

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundant to and in process of being replaced by Infobox SPT subway station; see below. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Less than ten National Rail stations still to be moved to Infobox GB station. All Subway stations have been moved. --Stewart (talk)  15:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All affected National Rail stations have been moved to Infobox GB station. All Subway stations have been moved. --Stewart (talk)  17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per discussion before -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 10 October 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:Infobox SPT subway station

 * 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 was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)



Unused. Redundant to Infobox SPT station. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

VERY STRONG Oppose - the template being used as a replacement Infobox SPT station is not appropriate and has far too many fields as a suitable replacement. Infobox SPT station is also rarely used with most GB stations in the SPT area using the main Infobox GB station template. --Stewart (talk)  15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Withdrawn in favour of deleting Infobox SPT station; see above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional - No longer redundant, the articles to all fifteen Subway stations are now correctly using this tempalte. The suggested replacement Infobox SPT station is only being used for 11 of the Network Rail stations in the SPT, the remaining 200plus using Infobox UK station (or the redirected replacement Infobox GB station). Once the relevant NR stations have been migrated to Infobox GB station, TfD should be proposed for Infobox SPT station. --Stewart (talk)  15:39, 4 October 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Infobox Copenhagen station

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unused. Redundant to Infobox station. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant. Glass  Cobra  07:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Generic templates are always better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 5 October 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:Indianrock

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  06:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Template almost completely full of redlinks, no other rock by country article (eg. American rock, Australian rock) has a similar template Glass  Cobra  10:15, 4 October 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.

Star Wars episode templates

 * 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 -- Cenarium  Talk  22:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These templates have no use as they are redundant. There is no need to have individual templates for individual movies. Mythdon (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seem to be enough auxiliary articles for each movie to warrant separate templates. Glass  Cobra  07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I could see these being overhauled to be more efficient, but for the time being they work and I don't see a better alternative. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe they could be edited or trimmed, but overall they're convenient (especially for newcomers) and better than having to search for these links in various articles. sixty nine   • speak, I say •  18:08, 11 October 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.