Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 7



Template:Dirt

 * 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 --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary template for three items, the series, a character list and an episode list. There were individual character articles as well but I redirected them for lack of any independent notability. All three pages are interlinked. Otto4711 (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Superfluous. VasuVR  (talk, contribs) 08:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's simply no need for a template with only three links. The fact that the characters aren't notable enough for their own article (and are never likely to be in the future) means there's little scope for this template to be expanded. Bettia   (rawr!)  10:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary for an article and two lists. – sgeureka t•c 13:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 20:31, 6 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:Grammar

 * 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 Redirect to copyedit --Magioladitis (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundant to copyedit and its for parameter, also spelling was tfded. Ipatrol (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC) *Delete per nom.--Witticism (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC) vandalism-only account that was making edits to get auto-confirmed --Enric Naval (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Copyedit. Although I'm probably the only one who ever uses the parameters in that template. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per reason for nomination. VasuVR  (talk, contribs) 08:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Copyedit. It's transcluded from 250+ articles, and I can see how both template names would/could be used interchangeably to mean the same thing. – sgeureka t•c 13:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Copyedit if the {{copyedit|for=grammar}} parameter can be passed through a redirect. If not Redirect anyway.  (Shouldn't spelling be a redirect as well?) ~ Paul T +/C 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 20:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No deletionABC101090 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect or re-template for a while. Making it a pure redirect would make the wording less specific, which makes it less helpful.  How about removing it from any Wikipedia help files and mass-replacing existing uses in articles, then keeping it as {{copyedit|for=grammar}} for a while in case anyone accidentally uses it through habit?  After it becomes rarely used, redirect/delete it. (Or is 250 a rarely-used maintenance template already?)  --Closeapple (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Mass editing might be out of the window, however, under WP:R#NOTBROKEN, though I would be in favour, indeed could implement, mass changes if a good redirect could not be implemented. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unless redirect can pass "for" parameter; if it can do so, then redirect. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect if parameters can be forwarded as well. Otherwise, delete as it is redundant to Copyedit.  — Archon Magnus (Talk 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to copyedit. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to copyedit, It's good to trim down duplication the plethora of templates out there. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Grammar not the same as needing copyedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.23.61 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.

Swaminarayan Temple 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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 06:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple template nomination.

Not a template. Has trivial content about 1 specific temple each. Was used only in 1 page and has been substituted into the page. Hence delete these templates. VasuVR (talk, <b style="color:maroon;">contribs</b>) 12:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no need for all those templates, just a single infobox will do the job... and that's assuming these temples are notable enough for their own individual article in the first place. Bettia   (rawr!)  12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Inappropriate use of templates, which were all used only on List of Swaminarayan temples (and now have been substituted). is the correct template to use on articles about individual Hindu temples. Abecedare (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I made these templates specifically for the Swaminarayan temples page - modeled on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I dint know this was the wrong way of going about this. Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 04:44, 9 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:Code Lyoko character
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 G2 as test page. Template was broken and never would've been used anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Redundant to Infobox character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Considering the template page is currently broken, the consensus that none of the characters are notable enough for their own page (see this AfD), and that all but two of the links redirect to a main character page (the other two have recently been recreated by a single user ignoring the consensus, and both use the generic character infobox anyway), I don't believe this infobox would ever be used. If consensus on character notability were to change, the generic Infobox character would be more useful.  Bettia   (rawr!)  11:34, 7 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.