Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 13



Template:Official

 * 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 speedy keep Plastikspork (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason to use a template for something like this. The link text is unlikely to ever be changed. External link templates are only useful for sites that may change their link format (e.g., YouTube) while still maintaining the same identifiers. --- RockMFR 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the link is unlikely to change, the template provides a standard format for labeling links to official websites. In that regard, it's useful for consistency across the project. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per C.Fred. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep convenient short cut to having to type "Official website" every time (albeit a very minor one). Also it serves to standardize the way official sites are linked to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per C.Fred. MaxVeers (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per C.Fred.  The Flash  {talk} 02:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per C.Fred. Filmcom (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Using templates like these provides consistent formatting across all articles. BOVINEBOY 2008 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per others, this provides a standard and a easy way to format the addresses and text. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Snow Keep per above and the 6177 transclusions of this template. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - per Tothwolf and C.Fred. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - gah, stop this abomination. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - highly useful template, no reason to delete. Agent0042 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 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:Japanese track list

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)



This template was created a short while before the more standard Tracklist, and would not have been proposed had Tracklist existed at the time. All of the instances of the template in articles have been updated to use Tracklist instead. Based on WP:TFD points 2 and 3, I think it should be deleted, and the template's creator User:Ned Scott has also agreed.  十  八  21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - not sure it qualifies under point 3, but the other reasons more than make up for that. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:34, 13 August 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:Chronology of 2009 swine flu cases in the Philippines

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)



Almost same case with Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_30. If we need something like this we can just put it in the article. Moreover, I have serious doubts if we need to record cases day by day. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete after substitution. Single use template that fits only one article.  Agreed on the lack of a need for a day by day update (how long is this going to be tracked?).  Monthly would be better, or at the very least, weekly until that becomes too long. Resolute 14:02, 14 August 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:Header image

 * 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 as now redundant to top icon Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This template should probably be deprecated in favor of the more widely used top icon template. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you only want it deprecated, why not mark it with tdeprecated, migrate all usages, and then redirect? 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the indenting/offsets work differently... perhaps a merge of the coding is in order. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I made the template at Header image before the new template existed. The top icon template seems a bit more robust and I have no issues with deprecating in its favor assuming variable width indents are supported with the new template. I would suggest making the Header image template a redirect or transclusion and replacing its use in header image set as well. I think this can move forward as I am the only user of the template. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I will move both back to your userspace in case there is something to merge. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 08:41, 21 August 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.