Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 25



Template:Obscure

 * 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) 05:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



This template violates WP:NPOV by subjectively determining that some information is "obscure", and additionally encourages unproductive editing practices. It suggests for editors to delete informative, referenced material solely because some other section of the article has not yet been developed. Alternatively it suggests that editors could split off an "obscure" section of a small article about a single topic, but this will only lead to burdensome WP:AfD proceedings. To me this seems part of a counterproductive trend where a would-be "editor in chief" claims the right to balance an article, not by working to fill in missing details, but by undoing other editors' efforts and pushing them to work on those aspects the editor-in-chief finds interesting rather than what they might themselves be motivated to contribute. Most of the articles tagged with this template need more information, not less, while its use in WBRZ-TV and Soovin Kim should be replaced with some more specific objection regarding notability of persons. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jeni  ( talk )(Jenuk1985) 16:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, and I think the "no trivia" template performs an extremely similar function so this is unnecessary. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The trivia and "rewrite so it's comprehensible to non-experts" templates seem to cover most use cases, and without the problems outlined in the nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to fancruft, which already deals with this problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is describing miss use.  AJUK  Talk!!  21:47, 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:-1

 * 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) 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



This template is used to move the &lt;ref&gt; citations (e.g., [1]) slightly to the left. I don't think this looks good, and it doesn't make sense to do this in just a few articles. I've already removed the two current mainspace usages of it. --- RockMFR 16:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, not feasibly applied, basically just one user's preference on what cite tags should look like. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary duplication of the functionality of   tags. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, of no practical use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 30 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:Plot thread

 * 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) 18:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)



another inappropriate 1632 linking template, now orphaned; it is anti-wiki to not use wiki-links. delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless and inappropriate - this is one of many templates which seems to exist to make it hard to edit these articles Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per justification given in "Template:1632Count series total inprint", (yesterday's noms) ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 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.

Infobox Prison Break season 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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



Orphan, unused templates. Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, orphaned. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 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:Infobox Polish Soldiers Blue

 * 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) 05:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



Redundant to Infobox Military Person; used on only three articles.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, has less functionality than the main military person template. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:09, 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.