Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 14



Template:Rulers known as "the Great"

 * 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 remove all transclusions then delete. Erik9 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This template adds little or nothing to the articles in which it is included. The connection between these rulers is extremely tenuous at best, the template simply duplicates a not especially good list article (List of people known as The Great), and overall the template is misleading in that it implies that some genuine connection exists. I advocate deletion, but would also be interested in any arguments that can be made for the continued use of this template. ClovisPt (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * delete, as arbitrary collection of otherwise unrelated people, with no informational value that I can see. As noted in nomination only possible connection is highly tenuous, non-defining and without any clear or objective scope. In many cases here the epithet is largely just some accident of historiography&mdash;no consistency, methodology, or intentional classification behind it. Lumps together people who&mdash;to wildly varying degrees&mdash;may have been called that in their lifetime, as part of formal title, by their subjects, by later hagiographers, by only one faction, by general accord and usage, by a single source, by some 19thC historian mostly to distinguish them from some lesser-known prior namesake, or even not at all, in the case of some where the term is translated from another language. Some here controlled large territories and had lasting and trans-regional influence, while others only lorded it over smaller local polities. Equally there are rulers whose achievements and legacies eclipse or at least match many of those here, but for whatever reason are known by some other epithet or even just their name. The "List of..." article is also probably ripe for deletion nomination on much the same basis, but this template adds little to nothing towards the understanding of the rulers' articles or placing them into any sensible category or context. --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 01:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete as above. Not a topic at all, just a more-or-less random collection of unrelated rulers. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per cjllw; really trivial connection between these articles. Maralia (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – As noted by everyone above, this template groups unrelated rulers on the basis of a shared name. To argue that any real connection exists between these individuals would require original research. –Black Falcon (Talk) 07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The link is indeed tenuous. Might work as a list - perhaps. GregorB (talk) 20:10, 20 February 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:Bad link

 * 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) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



I can't really figure out what this template is specifically for beside put things in a category. It is hardly used. And dead link is likely a better option  Birgitte SB  18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This template never made any sense. --- RockMFR 23:40, 14 February 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:Shugo Chara!

 * 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) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



Completely unnecessary template. Give that there are four articles for the series, all of which are interlink to each other, making the nav template completely redundant. This appears to be creating a nav template for the sake of having a nav template. Farix (Talk) 13:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Interlinking is right now sufficient for four articles --KrebMarkt 13:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment there is a fifth article that could be added to the navbox, List of Shugo Chara!! Doki— episodes. That said, I'm still not sure that would be enough to justify a navbox (it's borderline). We really need to have a discussion on the minimum number of articles necessary to justify navboxes (and series categories)... I also changed Krebmarkt's !vote from "support" to "delete", which means the same thing in context, but is clearer... Hope no one minds. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the fifth article, that's the fourth article. (Main, characters, first series, second series) --Farix (Talk) 00:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the Shugo Chara soundtracks will eventually run out control knowing how well its singles charted :( Delete is the best choice for now. --KrebMarkt 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aah, right you are. Keeping track of that when trying to look past section links is confusing if you're using Popups... 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:47, 19 February 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:Talk Conversation

 * 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) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



Not really useful; it essentially creates a new section with the title and content that has been passed in the various parameters. This is redundant to the 'New section' link at the top of discussion pages, and typing the title/message through the template doesn't save any time or effort.  Richard 0612  11:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - To tell you the truth, I really do not remember why I made that template. Either way, it seems useless now and is not being used anywhere. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ message] email) 22:17, 16 February 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 Piczo Website

 * 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) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



Unused template whose sole function appears to be the display of a deleted image. Delete. ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: WP:CSD. Robofish (talk) 22:19, 17 February 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:YearsinfilmHoriz

 * 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) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



Unused template; it's not obvious where this would be a better alternative to Yearsinfilm. PC78 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Robofish (talk) 22:18, 17 February 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:List of highest-paid

 * 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) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



Unused, only contains red links (articles were deleted). PC78 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (speedy G8, possibly). Robofish (talk) 22:18, 17 February 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:Box Office Leaders UK

 * 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 replace and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



Only four transclusions and easily replaceable with succession box. PC78 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with 'succession box'. Robofish (talk) 22:17, 17 February 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:2000s black and white 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



Contains a table which is redundant to List of post-1960s films in black-and-white. Only transclusion is in, but it's highly unnecessary and the category itself looks a little dubious. PC78 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - redundant to the list page. Seems to be a misuse of the category. Robofish (talk) 22:16, 17 February 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.