Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 3



Template:Album cover article rationale

 * 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) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Deprecated by the machine readable Album cover fur. BJ Talk 23:49, 3 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:Infobox The Twilight Zone season 2 episode 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) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Another unused orphan template with a list of episodes Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete broke, unused, serves no purpose. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and currently unusable. --RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 8 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:Infobox The Twilight Zone season 1 episode 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) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Unused orphan template with no reason to exist. Magioladitis (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete broke, unused, serves no purpose. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and currently unusable. --RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 8 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:Infobox Freaks and Geeks season 1 episode 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) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Another unused orphan template with list of episodes. Magioladitis (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete broke, unused, serves no purpose. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and currently unusable. --RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 8 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:Infobox Spooks season 6 episode 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) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Another unused orphan template with list of episodes (which are all red but one). Magioladitis (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete broke, unused, serves no purpose. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and currently unusable. --RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 8 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:Infobox Mad Men season one

 * 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) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Another unused orphan template with a list of episodes. Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete broke, unused, serves no purpose. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and currently unusable. --RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 8 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.

Box office succession boxes

 * 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. --Conti|✉ 16:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

At WikiProject Films, there is a discussion about succession boxes being used at the end of film articles, and the opinion seems to be to remove them. The above templates use succession box coding and are used in multiple film articles, so this would be a good start to deprecate succession boxes from film articles. I will repeat my rationale against them: Succession boxes clog the ends of film articles with information that is not directly pertinent to the topic. Any impressive box office performance, such as #1 for the opening weekend or holding onto #1 for x weeks should already be determined in the prose. In addition, previous box office leaders are not relevant, and succeeding box office leaders may or may not be relevant (relevant usurpers should be conveyed in prose anyway). The problem with these templates is that to avoid systemic bias, numerous territories need to be listed. See this particularly grotesque example. — Erik (talk • contrib) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. That example is already excessive and for completeness it would be even worse. Much better to use prose for this kind of information. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. A fundamental problem besides clutter and the need to cover such milestones in the article itself is that such boxes are not properly used in this manner. Guidelines don't cover such usages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both per discussion. As noted, they clutter the article, are not useful navigation tools, often add OR and trivial information to the articles, and display a heavy American-centric bias in all articles, even foreign films. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I support deleting this as long as their is a consensus to remove all succession boxes from film articles first. BOVINEBOY 2008 00:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, delete these boxes as they are often uncited as well as filling up articles with ugly huge blocks of nothing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's not really ugly. TheListUpdater (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Extremepro (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - of minor use. They also really screw up in cases where a film is #1 at separate times.--Remurmur (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I disagree with the complaints that the box is ugly and useless. Its main problem is the difficulty of making it inclusive of the many different markets in which top movies lists may be kept. If the box had, for example, collapsible sections for different geographical regions, so that more markets could be included without overwhelming the page, then it could be useful. That said, it's a bit much on the page in its current form, and if the consensus on the film articles is to remove such boxes, then this template will end up being unused regardless. --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other reasons why the templates do not work. First, the templates can be challenged for not being verifiable; while #1 opening weekend in the United States is easy enough to check, it's less the case with other countries.  Also, the templates lack context, like how much a film made in a particular country.  For example, at Hancock (film), there is detailed prose about how the film was received in various countries.  Additionally, why are the #1 films before and after relevant?  We can't tell from just the templates whether the succeeding film brought the film in question down a notch or if it was just diminishing returns for that film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I always thought it was rather trivial. I think it's placement got out of hand, it's a little to big and inappropriate for an encyclopedia  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   19:48, 10 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:MortalKombatProject

 * 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) 02:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Unused, deprecated by. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 19:18, 10 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:MMOGCM

 * 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) 02:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)



Old project template, unused for over 2 years. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 19:18, 10 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:FFCOTF 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 discussion was delete. Bot action requested.

WP:FF has been merged into WP:SE, bunch of old templates that were probably missed in the last clean up. Collaboration of the fortnight hadn't been used long before the merge as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Former WPFF Article has quite a few uses on talk pages. How should this be resolved? Plastikspork (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we just remove it from talk pages. I don't see how this is usefull. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and remove from talkpages on which it appears. Plastikspork (talk) 17:44, 11 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:Anglican cathedrals Great Britain and Ireland

 * 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 Plastikspork (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template is now unused; it has been superseded by Cathedrals of the Church of England, Cathedrals of the Church in Wales, Cathedrals of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and Cathedrals of the Church of Ireland; all its uses have been replaced by one of those. +Angr 10:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, superseded. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as no longer necessary. This was something of a controversial template in the first place, it seems. Jafeluv (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, superseded. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dn. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:12, 8 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:2006–07 UEFA Champions League

 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not need a separate navbox for every season of the UEFA Champions League. Links to the different stages of this season's competition can be found at Template:2006–07 in European Football (UEFA), and to use this navbox to interconnect A.C. Milan season 2006–07 and Real Madrid C.F. season 2006–07 is tenuous at best. – PeeJay 09:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - has been replaced by UEFA Champions League which is used for the current seasons. chandler 10:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Chandler. GiantSnowman 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above 2 cmts. Airplaneman  talk 02:57, 5 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:Comsubtemp

 * 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 per this and plethora of recent related deletion discussions. Plastikspork (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * - sub-template of above
 * Template:Comsubtemp/doc goes out in teh same boat
 * Template:Comsubtemp/doc goes out in teh same boat

teh keystones to the inappropriate 1632 series templates. delete. cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and current lack of use in article space. Plastikspork (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * note — and delete Category:1632 series template sub-templates along with these ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:05, 7 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:Account request

 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)



This template is no longer used as account creation requests now operate on a program hosted at the toolserver. GrooveDog (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 17:26, 10 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.