Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 24



Template:Top ten tennis players

 * 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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



This template is similar to the ones the golfer ones are based upon, and if it is consensus to delete the golf ones it should be the same for this tennis one to be deleted!98.240.44.215 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep No reason for delete it (WildCherry06 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete - Per same reasoning as in Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 21. Garion96 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete it, and unlike the pro golfers template one seemed to be, it actually is maintained weekly when the rankings are released. The article is included in the pages of all persons in the template, and is removed from articles when players are no longer in the top ten. It is not gender exclusive and includes the top ten players in not just men's singles, but in men's & women's singles and doubles. Morhange (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WildCherry06 and Morhange. No reason to delete a useful and well maintained template. --Don Lope (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per these rules WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO.98.240.44.215 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not really sure how those apply here, can you elaborate? Morhange (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think it should be deleted? Why should it be kept!88.208.222.14 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be kept because it provides up-to-date information on who is ranked where in the tennis world. There is not a single article on Wikipedia that provides all of this information on all four different ranking lists. There is no article (that I can find anyway) that even lists the doubles rankings for men or women, and there isn't an article that lists the men's and women's singles list in one article. I think the template is fine. Morhange (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - It is encyclopaedic. It is the sort of thing people will look for. The best reason for keeping something on here. Alan16 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a news item, subject to rapid change. Not suitable for an encyclopedia, which is WP:Not News. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not really a "news" item subject to "rapid change." It changes once a week, every Monday morning and the ATP singles Rankings page changes right along with it. Morhange (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Seeing as the player articles are update as often, should they therefore be deleted? Once a week changes are not rapid. Alan16 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The nominator is just being WP:Pointy. ShondaLear (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:Pointy is pretty rediculus and needs to be removed from wikipedia because everyone makes points that is the reason for an argument, which the only way to avoid an argument is to not write anything on here.98.240.44.215 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason for delete it. If you want to delete it, delete everything that updates like sports, songs music charts performance and reality show updates. that is what the people that want to delete it is saying. wikipedia is a place now were poeple can find facts rather than deleting this cancel the accounts of popel that are putting things that are not true on some wikipedia profiles. (Dencod16 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)).
 * Delete. Any template that requires constant moving in and out of articles isn't very stable.  And one a week here with articles going on for years without edits is very rapid.  Templates should be for things that have been done and are set about a person, not details that constantly change.  Also, why only top ten?  The article lists twenty and the website lists 100.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There isn't really much constant moving with this template aside from the bottom two positions. The top 5 usually remains pretty consistent in men's, and the template only requires removal or additional once a week and only in a couple articles. And the top ten is usually the premier location for where a player wants to be. You see articles all the time about so-and-so entering the top ten for the first time. Morhange (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I just updated it with the new rankings and of all 41 people currently listed in the template, with the new rankings released this week, I only needed to remove it from two pages and add it to one. Morhange (talk)
 * Still, a template that requires constant moving isn't really stable. Just because it's only a few changes doesn't mean it's a good idea.  For our articles to be rated highly, we want them to be stable.  Why make templates that counter that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep keeps comparison between players relevant and up-to-the-minute, improving our content. Jheald (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's amazing how so many people on Wikipedia want to delete obviously useful stuff because they think it violates this, that, or the other in some obscure way, and I seriously think they need to get out more.  AJUK  Talk!!  21:51, 31 July 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:1632Count series total inprint

 * 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) 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



















I think we can live with typing this out. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Note, they are all now orphans after subst. Plastikspork (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per Ricky ;) Good work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm considering making a template I can invoke... "Delete template as far too specific, and as fostering walled garden approach. Consider transwikification to EricFlint.wikia.com" ... but you guys would probably nom it for deletion so I won't. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * only after getting someone to transwiki it over, too. note to others; no-joke: http://ericflint.wikia.com/ exists! and they've got copies of this garden! Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:12, 29 July 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:1632 loose ends

 * 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) 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



an overwrought html comment. now orphaned. delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - not needed Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This template is a loose end. delete ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:12, 29 July 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.

LA Project article posters

 * 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) 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



A series of article talk banners related to WikiProject Los Angeles. All of which do not add actual task forces or any maintenance categories and appear to serve as recruitment efforts. Several had fair use logos which were removed. Templates don't appear to add much aside from recruitment efforts on article talks. I've already proposed the entire project for conversion into a task force of WikiProject California and this is just part of the cleanup for that merge. Optigan13 (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, these task forces don't exist. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:13, 29 July 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:Grantville

 * 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) 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



Orphaned template which appears to have been used to create a link to create Grantville Unnecessary obfuscation. Plastikspork (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete but as you can tell from the parameters, oh, it does so much more, like the ability to have the template just give you Grantville without the link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Bad Idea™ — Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally pointless substitute for a regular (and more easily editable) Wikilink Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per justification given in "Template:1632Count series total inprint", above ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:13, 29 July 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:Cite GG02

 * 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) 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



No need for specialized template:cite book, especially for idiosyncratic syntax and especially when a lot of the syntax is broken. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, seems to be speedy-eligible per CSD:T3, hardcoded instance of an existing template. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - An an example of needless template proliferation. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as quite inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just speedy it. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:13, 29 July 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:None band

 * 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) 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



Navbox template, unused - and unusable, in that every single link is red, including the link to the primary topic. (The primary topic page was deleted for non-notability; none of the others existed to begin with.) —Paul A (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete as an unused and apparently not useful template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, this template has ZERO links. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prematurely created template. Jafeluv (talk) 16:34, 29 July 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:Cite GG01

 * 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) 16:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



We don't need specialized versions of template:cite book. And, yes, while using q instead of quote and pp instead of pages seems like a cool idea if you want to, that doesn't mean you get to make your own template with your own syntax for fun. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment You would not believe how it extraordinarily difficult it was to figure out all this template's idiosyncrasies here and here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ya, I know. To those on the edge of this: This is a huge obfuscated mess. It *all* has to be pulled-out down to the root. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - An example of needless template proliferation. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as quite inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per justification given in "Template:1632Count series total inprint", above. Or just speedy it as a hardcoded variant of an existing template. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's also Template:Cite GG01/doc for the closing admin to consider. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:14, 29 July 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.