Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 18



Template:“Joe Greene Great Performance Award”

 * 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 with the possibility of renaming. Why don't people who want to rename it discuss the new name on the template's talk page? delldot  &nabla;.  21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)



Its not an official award and should not have its own template or article. Yankees10 22:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then what is it, if not an official award? And how is it tracked, if it isn't official? According to this article, it seems like a real award to me. I vote to keep. Gabefarkas (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pittsburgh Steelers Rookie of the Year...keep.  Grsz  11  17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Pittsburgh Steelers Rookie of the Year? No one is going to enter those quotes correctly.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:02, 24 January 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:Ulan Bator weatherbox

 * 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. Glass  Cobra  15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unused template. Just a template to use the template for a specific locale. Atmoz (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are many of these at Category:Weatherbox templates. Should they all be deleted?  twirligig Leave one! ⋄ Check me out! 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're only used once, then why do we need a template? Yes, I think they all should be deleted. -Atmoz (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I just added it to the Ulan Bator article. There is no need to delete this template when as Twirligig said, there are many similar ones like which are being used productively.  --Eastlaw (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * is transcluded a lot. Why doesn't every city have their own template? Because it's easier to just have the main weather infobox. -Atmoz (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah, that does make sense. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The the Infobox Weather syntax should be used within the articles and not transcluded into the article from a single use shell template.  This makes it easier for the average editor to quickly edit the information without having to go "in search of".  Similar arguments made regarding the single use "shell" templates of other templates such as Infobox Country and Infobox Settlement and the community consensus was not to single use "shell" the templates.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and  MJC detroit . Also voting to delete all in Category:Weatherbox templates without TfDing each one, if possible.  twirligig Leave one! ⋄ Check me out! 02:18, 20 January 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.

Talk page attribution 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 discussion was Delete all. I'll orphan them all using Yobot and then delete them. --Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)



All of these templates are obsolete due to the creation of hidden categories. See also the discussions at Template_talk:DANFS, Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_12, and Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_17.

I have already updated all the mainspace templates to include the article which transclude them in the appropriate Wikipedia source categories. All that remains is to migrate the templates off the talk pages and make sure that the corresponding articles are not missing tags. Eastlaw (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment--the previous rationales offered for the retention of the talk page templates (specifically Appletons talk) no longer apply due to the use of hidden categories. See Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_18.


 * Update: Thanks to AWB and its List Comparing function, I have made sure that all pages with these talk page tags have been tagged with the appropriate mainspace template.  Now there is no reason to keep these templates.  Deleting them will reduce talk page clutter and clear a lot of unnecessary crap out of Category:Attribution templates.  --Eastlaw (talk) 02:40, 23 January 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.