Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 9



Template:WP:RFD

 * 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. Deprecated and unused template. Ruslik (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdated and unused RfD template. The current structure uses Rfd2 making this template redundant.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused template. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to WP:PM, I'd like to use this for WP:PM (proposed mergers) it's a nice looking template. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternately histmerge into Rfd2, since it's a previous incarnation of that template. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 10:19, 13 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:Silent Hill character

 * 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Only used in one article to tell us that the character is a writer. No need for an entire template for this one piece of information.  Pagra shtak  17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Template with one parameter for a character's occupation - how is that useful? – sgeureka t•c 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obsolete tool. This was created to add several series-specific parameters to Infobox VG character. As the fields were pared down and the character articles merged or redirected or deleted, it shrank to is current, useless form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:06, 11 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.

Templates: enPR2, enpr2 and AHD

 * 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 delete --Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates are exact duplicates of and do nothing except for act as alternative names for the template already named in this reasoning. Peachey88 (Talk Page 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - And I'm the one stuck cleaning up the mess.—  Dæ dαlusContribsRespond on my talk please 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete They serve no purpose. J IM ptalk·cont 12:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gone. kwami (talk) 09:47, 16 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:Mile Oak Rovers F.C.

 * 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Template links only to one article and a scantily-populated category. Other articles have been redlinks ever since the template was created well over a year ago, and given that this is a very low-level amateur team, there is almost no chance that such articles will ever exist. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. – PeeJay 09:09, 11 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:Rolling Stone's 100 Best Songs of 2008

 * 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. Ruslik (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is something much better covered in a list...and even then it's a bit iffy. The problem is that you can pick any magazine and make a template of this type. It's not a good navigational tool. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This isn't meant to be a navigational template, it's used for adding routine text to the relevant articles. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apologies. It's still not real useful though. If we use the Rolling Stone list well then we can add any magazine or media list we want to. It's the same issue as with the templates that list the top X songs for a particular radio station. It's all opinion and no basis in fact like a Billboard chart has. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure it's useful: the template is subst'ed and adds noteworthy information to relevant articles with a full citation. --JD554 (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL :D --Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That page talks about information, not tools for adding it. --JD554 (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I am currently using the template to add the information to the critical reception section of all 100 songs.  So far I am at 51.  Using this template I only have to imput 2 numbers everytime (the page number at the site and the number of the song) and have a fully cited statement of unquestionable notability (Rolling Stone magazine is MUCH more notable than a local radio station).  This template is very useful.  This cannot be covered in a list because it is well established on Wikiepedia that copying subjective lists from outside sources is copyright violation.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Due to the fact that this template is subst, that means that now that it is transcluding the deletion warning in the articles and I have to manually go in and erase it everytime. I was planning on knocking this out today, but now I can't because this has doubled my workload.  If any admin (other than myself) can close this TfD quickly once a clear consensus has been drawn, I would really appreciate it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put the TFD notice in noinclude, so you should be able to subst without the deletion notice appearing.  Pagra shtak  17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea - thanks!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't really what templates are for. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and userfy - There are other reliable sources like Rolling Stone, so I feel this is a bit like advertising or endorsing them over other reliable sources. However, the point of usefulness is valid (nevermind the above comment ;) and is resolved by userfying: that way the editors can subst the template (and will be forced to - userspace tamplates cannot be transcluded in article space), just write the two numbers, and we are not officially endorsing Rollign Stone. WIN, WIN, WIN. Do a hear snowball? :D--Cerejota (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I though about it, and why is this being done? We do not go around BLPs labeling as "Time's 100 more influential people" or some such. This is beyond the template, its about hwo the content is presented and reliable sources. Its not just copy-vio why we don't allow subjective lists, its also because they are subjective, closed lists. Food for thought...--Cerejota (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment there seems to be some substitution use and some non-substitution use of this template possibly causing an error: see Toe Jam (BPA song). No opinion on the template if the kinks are worked out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 14 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.