Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 26



Template:Louie Jordan

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

All content in template is currently at afd and not likely to survive. Even if the articles were kept (yeah, right) there'd still be only three articles to use it on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Articles are all about a non-notable artist and will likely be deleted. Canadian   Nine  23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (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:CSD Municipal

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unmaintained navbox, the details have not been updated since 2007. It displays inaccurate information - the manager and many of the players have left the club since 2007, it is not properly named, it is only transcluded on one page (on which it does not belong). King of the North   East  23:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the  North   East  23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if someone were willing to keep it up to date, this is a bad idea for a template. Team/squad templates should be for fixed historical teams (e.g. past tournament winners), not a constantly-changing current roster. Robofish (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Robofish, I think that any squad template should never had a changing roster. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As the last editor of the template in question, I would like to say that I try to fixed, but due to the lack of references available I couldn't keep it up to date, so I don't mind if it is deleted or not, but I would like to point out to the 2 editors Locos epraix and Robofish that most soccer clubs have a team/squat template which is constantly changing, examples:Template:Godoy Cruz squad, Template:West Ham United F.C. squad and Template:Bayer 04 Leverkusen squad just to name a few, it is always a good idea to try to inform yourselves before expressing a keep or delete comment.--Bocafan76 (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (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:Apollon Kalamarias squad

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  23:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Totaly unmaintained after the club were relegated in mid 2008, all blue linked players have left the club, not transcluded anywhere. King of the North   East  22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the  North   East  22:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - not even in use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - If it is outdated, it's a useless template. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:00, 27 April 2009 (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:Grunt Production Game Studios

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   speedy delete (G8). - Vianello (Talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Template of non-notable people associated with non-notable game development company. Thanks, mynameinc 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - What does it work for? another useless template. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete apparent test page, parent article about to be deleted via A7. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought so, too, but couldn't find a category in Templates to list under. Thanks, mynameinc 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It meets G2 as test page, or G8 as the parent article is gone. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:39, 27 April 2009 (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:Energy films

 * 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

Scope is far to broad to justify navigation template. Rob (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - how can the scope be too broad when the template contains so few links? When Wikipedia gets more articles about energy films, we can split the template into more specific templates (such as Peak oil films, etc.). Even though energy itself is a broad topic, there are only a few notable films about energy; therefore this template has narrow scope. --Teratornis (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's too broad if you include every film dealing with energy. What's included is an arbitrary selection.  It also has no coherent organization in how it sub-groups the articles.  By including works of fiction, there's no clear definition of what is to be included.  For instance, you could include The China Syndrome and every film ever made about the trouble with nuclear power.  On Deadly Ground and other pure-entertainment films use energy/environment issues as the backdrop to the film, and I just don't see any rule for inclusion.  I can't see what use it is, to let people hop between totally unrelated films.  I could have added every energy film to the template, but that would be point making, but it seems obvious there's no limit to what could be added.  Shall we also make a navigation template for work, education, life, air, water, space, people, and animals?  Navigation templates are supposed to help you navigate conveniently between closely interrelated articles, and aren't an alternate system of categories.  "Energy" is just to broad. --Rob (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would actually like to see a comprehensive list of notable films that peripherally relate to energy. How large a number are we talking about? 10? 20? 100? I hadn't thought much about fictional films, because (a) they rarely deal primarily with energy, and (b) fictional films routinely sacrifice technical accuracy to enhance the plot. A nonsense depiction of energy is not what I consider energy, but it couldn't hurt to make the exlusion explicit. We can exclude fictional films by restricting the template to documentaries. Further restrict the documentaries to those which primarily address energy issues. We can document the restrictions on the template documentation page. We could have other templates for fictional films about nuclear power, and so on. The relatedness of the films currently in the template should be obvious to anyone who watches the films (several of the films interview the same talking heads and so on). To measure the convenience of a navigation aid, we would have to collect data on reader click-throughs. I don't see how arbitrariness is a problem, because that is inevitably true of every conceivable grouping of articles - someone must arbitrarily decide what makes the cut. It's only a problem if people begin edit warring about what belongs, and that has not happened with this template yet. --Teratornis (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful template about notable films. Johnfos (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A navigation template for a wide and not very defined topic, no, thanks. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - As it currently stands, it is too broad. Rob points to a clear fact that the template just doesn't list all of the films that are about energy. There are countless fictional films about energy. Now, should this be renamed "Energy film documentaries", then I would support its existence. Strike my delete...I move to "Rename" the template, because what is listed there is primarily documentaries anyway.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Rob. Despite the intention of the template, which I do understand, the scope of films that could be potentially added to this template is too staggering to list. Anything from a film about nuclear weapons, to nuclear power, to Shine, to anything even remotely related to energy of some kind. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shine? Are you seriously suggesting that a good-faith editor would add a link to that film to the template? --Teratornis (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename - excessively broad, no clear inclusion criteria. Template:Documentaries about energy issues might be acceptable, however (which is what this actually seems to be). Robofish (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a rename would be an improvement, but that's still a massive area. While there's a finite number of energy documentaries with widespread theatrical releases (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth), if you include made-for-TV, direct-to-video, and limited release stuff, from all over the world, you've got an enormous quantity of titles.  Energising India is a mere 36 minutes.  Wind Over Water (apparently) deals mainly with local politics in Cape Code, and was made largely by one person, acting independently.  The number of locally oriented and independent documentaries about individual energy projects and issues is massive.  A nav box about a specific type of energy films made by/for a specific source (e.g. PBS, BBC, etc...) might make sense. Regardless, there needs to be a very clear limit set. --Rob (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - many energy documentaries exist, but few are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. Currently that set is small enough to fit in a navigation template. Renaming the template makes perfect sense to me, because there is a large difference between documentaries which attempt to be technically accurate vs. fictional films which readily sacrifice accuracy to enhance the plot. --Teratornis (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What exactly constitutes an "energy film"? Do titles such as Silkwood, Chain Reaction, and Fail-Safe qualify? The Hitchcock film Notorious has a sub-plot about uranium, so does that make it an "energy film"? I agree with those who alluded to how broad a scope this is. I think there needs to be a clear definition of "energy film" before it's determined whether or not a template listing them is appropriate and/or necessary. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - See above discussion about making explicit the template's implicit restriction to documentaries. --Teratornis (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Energy film? Isn't it a unestablished neologism? Besides, the template only embraces handful of articles. I don't think it's existence is justified.--Caspian blue 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There already are too-many useless film templates. LargoLarry (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All of the films listed are already in either Category:Environmental films or Category:Peak oil films. Categories or a list should be used to group this, not a navbox. I see that the environment is not covered in Category:Documentaries by topic and I think Category:Documentaries about environmental issues would be a good subcategory to create and move these film to. - kollision (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2009 (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:City of Blacktown 2001 Social Plan

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  23:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in use. Not edited for 2 1/2 years. BTW, original editor hasn't been on Wikipedia for half a year. Not likely to be used.Debresser (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, same as all those below. Robofish (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the reference is a broken link. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 02:12, 27 April 2009 (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:Macedonia confusing

 * 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in use. Identical to Template:Macedonia historical borders but with unencyclopedial name. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Doesn't that template fall into CSD? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 22:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:ARBMAC and ongoing WP:ARBMAC2--Caspian blue 20:27, 27 April 2009 (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:Timeline of the United States housing bubble

 * 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. I considered a edit history merge with Timeline of the United States housing bubble but there is actually no reason for that as the template was a copy paste move *from* that page - Nabla (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't in use. Hasn't been updated for over half a year. Has been made redundant by Timeline of the United States housing bubble. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A redundant and outdated template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locos epraix (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2009 (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:Rohru Climate:

 * 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in use. Hasn't been edited for over a year. Not likely to be used. BTW, the creator of this template hasn't been on Wikipedia ever after. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A ref template of a not very notable indian town; and it isn't used in its own article. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 22:01, 26 April 2009 (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:Refer

 * 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't in use. Nor do I think itis likely to be used in the future. Hasn't been edited for half a year. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - what's the point of this template?, does it try to substitute cite web or a common ? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 22:04, 26 April 2009 (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:Raelid2

 * 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. Also deleted, as a CSD-G8 (kind of... it is "G8 in reverse") - Nabla (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in use. Hasn't been edited in ages. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, same as below. Robofish (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (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:Doubtful

 * 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in use. Not likely to be used. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (plus we have better ways of doing this). Robofish (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (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 band singers

 * 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in use. Not likely to be used. BTW, the creator of this template hasn't been on Wikipedia ever after. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - unused and unwanted. Robofish (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (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:MP for Hexham

 * 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. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad use of templates; as it says on Template namespace, 'Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.' Using a template as a way to avoid having to copy repeated text may be tempting, but it makes it harder for new users to edit the article. Robofish (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It also makes it more likely that content not relevant to the article will be included. If someone wants to know about the MP for Hexham they should go to Hexham (UK Parliament constituency). It shouldn't be pasted onto dozens of articles. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - obviously it break with a established policy, and useless too. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rationale I created the template. What I wanted to do was put something in each village in that parliamentary area - 86 at the last count. The blurb is not about the MP, nor about Hexham, it is about governance: 'village is in the parliamentary constituency of Hexham...' see Deadwater. I would have pasted the same text into each BUT the MP changes at each election. If it is deleted then no village in that constituency will have that information - I am not prepared to update 86 villages. Also applies to Template:MP for Berwick which is another large constituency. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2009 (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:Editsection2

 * 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 Keep.

Same function than Editsection, in the documentation explain the reason of both templates, but if  is sometimes illegal, why not use   always? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 04:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep until a coding expert confirms that  is suitable for use in all instances.  If so, merge editsection2's code into editsection (and leave the redirect intact).  Under no circumstance would deletion be appropriate.  —David Levy 04:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, because sometimes  isn't valid.  See the HTML 4 documentation at W3C for the difference between block-level and inline elements. I.e., these templates exist for a reason. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:02, 4 May 2009 (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.