Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 28



Template:Future aircraft

 * 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. Judging from the discussion this template is only of a very limited usefulness. Ruslik_ Zero 10:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Superficial. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as below, spreads the load out. Easier to sort when you don't have one big mega category for all future things. -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per the newly-rewritten guidelines for the Future templates, it's not being allowed to be used except in limited circumstances, so there won't really be a load! - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The template duplicates the functionality of future, and as such is superfluous, and an example of template proliferation of copies of future. This template qualifies as a candidate for speedy deletion type "T3" (see  CSD)  In addition, the text and references of the properly drafted article are better able to inform the reader the temporal nature of the topic than an intrusive template at the top of an article which adds zero information and context to an article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep:I think we should keep this, it's gives the reader the information right at the top, that this aircraft will a proposed design. S/he can easily look at the template instead of going through it. '''yousaf465'
 * Unfortunatley, certain editors within WP feel that these templates should not be used in this manner. Thus the main Future template will suffice for theose rare cases where it's use meets with these editor's aproval. See Yellowdesk's comments for that view. Anyway, future should probably be deleted also, as it effectivley can't be used either. - BilCat (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Saying that something "contain[s] tentative information" and that the content may change" seems perfectly clear on an article about an aircraft; it means the final version of the aircraft could be different.  Different text isn't needed.  Yeah, it's more particular and specialized, but then so would having an open parameter and letting people write what they want but we don't do that either.  Instead, how about asking for parameters within the template to put into separate subcategories, but with the same language?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I feel that these discussions are often superfluous. I agree with BilCat. Based on the reasonings for deleting these specific templates, all use of any -style template should be discontinued, because the argument works all the way around. Delete one, delete them all. --Born2flie (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, very limited scope. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It should be clear in the lead that it is about something in the future. A template for this is unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Falcon. Dt128 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ugly and unnecessary. Flowerparty ☀ 02:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless. If the article doesn't make it clear that it is about the future, use a cleanup tag instead. — Kusma talk 04:06, 5 August 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:Future album

 * 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 ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Superficial. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable, rather than having lots of different 'future' tags it is more appropriate to flag the page with a "future event" tag which is more flexible anyway. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep helps sort the workload to have separate tags. -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Falcon. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 01:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep We need this template for articles on future albums. Deletion is not necessary. Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - absolutely necessary, because how do we distinguish articles about (verifiable) future albums? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The template duplicates the functionality of future, and as such qualifies for speedy deletion type "T3" (see CSD). Yet another example of needless proliferation of future, which is perfecty adequate to be used for the purpose this template is used for. Furthermore, the text and references of the article are better able to inform the reader the temporal nature of the topic than an intrusive template at the top of an article which adds zero information to a properly drafted article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Falcon. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - as Falcon pointed out, part of the reason that the future album template is used over future is to sort out the workload. Sure, for simplicity reasons a single future template would suffice as far as being a disclaimer for the reader, but it would not help the editors who use the specific future tags. If all of these templates were clustered together into one, that would hurt more than it would help. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Replace It is easier to have a general future artistic work template, rather than having a template for each future movie/novel/tv show/album/etc. -- RUL3R *flaming 05:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Falcon and Andrew. Andre666 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Who thought of deleting or replacing this? This is useful in the fact that it's specificially for albums, gives up a notice and puts it in a category where other future albums have that template. I don't see how it's replacable seeing it might be derived from another template, and I don't think future can span a wide array of any topics that most of these templates are handeling now, plus we need it. --Taylor Karras (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need templates to add categories. --Conti|✉ 09:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that, but I'm just noting how the template makes it easier for everybody to track, manage, basically do everything. --Taylor Karras (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per Ryanbstevens. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Falcon and Taylor Karras.  Dspradau   → talk   16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: If there's one thing about Wikipedia I don't like, it's the great amount of templates. If we can just use future, then we should. I fully agree with user Yellowdesk.--Totie (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep whinging about there being too many templates is no reason for deleting one of them. This is also important for, which helps WP:ALBUM keep up to date and source these albums appropriately, or figure if they fail WP:NALBUMS. It has an important use that needs to be specific to Albums, not just a Universal template.  k.i.a.c  (talktome - contribs) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need templates to add categories. --Conti|✉ 09:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said we did, however this template has a probably 95% success rate of being removed when the album is released (usually on that day). Whereas a Category hidden down the bottom is going to sit there and thus give us a whole heap of Past albums in the Upcoming albums category (when people remove the template they usually won't even edit the "scheduled to be released" sentence at the top of the lead). This is a problem that is easily avoided with the template. k.i.a.c  (talktome - contribs) 14:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Kiac. I call snowball clause. —  Σ  xplicit 04:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all the above keep reasons. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 06:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Kiac. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all above keep reasons  Pyro Stick  Haud Yer Wheesht! 12:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all the above keep reasons. Neon Flow (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep not sure how an album could use a 'future event' tag. --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!  15:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It's a needed template, and won't hurt at all if we keep it. ≤ alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all above. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Am I the only one who is slightly concerned about the fact that we aparently have so many articles about yet to be released albums that we need a special template for it? The bar is supposed to be set fairly high for creating seperate articles about things that do not exist yet, do all of these rely meed our notability criteria? In most other fields individual items are required to demonstrate individual notability and not just "piggyback" on the fact that they where created by or somehow related to another notable entity. Just musing. --Sherool (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." - it doesn't state that all albums do have notability, but if they are covered in reliable sources and have the usual criteria we would use for an Upcoming album (title, release date, track listing, sufficient coverage, etc.) then they are absolutely notable in my opinion. k.i.a.c  (talktome - contribs) 14:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, after a quick look on some of the transclutions I suspect a great many of them actually come nowhere near satisfying those notability criteria though, but guess that's a separate issue. If could maybe stress the bit about sufficient coverage being required a but more though. I was hard pressed to find any articles that use this template that actually cite anything other than the band's own website (at best where was one interview on another topic where the possible future release of said album was mentioned in passing) . Looks like some "spring cleaning" of these articles might be in order at the very least. --Sherool (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - helpful template for use by itself, separate from future. I utilize this with Category:Upcoming albums it all the time, and it's a good way of alerting editors that the subject might be WP:CRYSTAL or not notable for its own article at the moment. No feasible reason why we would benefit from deleting this, honestly. If anybody dislikes the general nature of multiple templates everywhere, best start at some place like WP:RFC or WP:VPPR. Jamie S93  13:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It should be clear in the lead that it is about something in the future. A template for this is unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does your opinion also apply to the general future template, then? Jamie S93  13:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. I never see the point in this warning. Readers are not simple, they really can read the lead instead of a huge template. Of course the article can change, it is a wiki after all. Garion96 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This template is very useful for new page patrolling. It is one of the few "future" templates that I use regularly. Wperdue (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - No time for me to explain, but some of the above comments share my opinion perfectly. The  Guy  (edits) 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Andrewlp1991 makes a good call.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The template is a perfect example of alerting readers and editors alike that the circumstances regarding the album are bound to change because the work, albeit not definite, has tell-tale signs that completion is iminent. RoMo37 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It could be rolled into future by adding parameters; however, a separate template makes for easier template maintenance and easier, more consistent use by editors. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for reasons laid out above, helps distinguish that details are not set in stone and could change. Better to have this template, just like future film, TV show, etc.  Ejfetters (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It won't hurt. Future event works too, but this is more specific which I think helps a lot of people more. Epeu (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I think it is one of those templates that helps keep Wikipedia organized. Nappyrootslistener (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Nappyrootslistener
 * Keep I was surprised this was up for deletion. The tag serves a very specific purpose, and I think replacing it with a more general one would only add ambiguity. Perfect Proposal 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I never could imagine this template would be requested for deletion. It is very helpful as we can see by the reasons above, and I don't see why we can't have specific future templates instead of grouping everything in a single generic template and category. Besides, it is used in hundreds of articles. Victão Lopes  I hear you... 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I was SHOCKED to see that this template was up for deletion. It keeps this place organized, it's widely used, and if you're like me then you can never remember the released dates of the albums and you're like...  Free  (talk)  (HRWiki) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrewlp1991, Falcon and Taylor Karras Dt128 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone's keeps, organisation, etc. (there are far too many to list). -- can  dle &bull; wicke  17:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a lot of future albums that need this template. Shark96z (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Makes my job as an Album Project participant easier. Makes my job as an admin easier finding non-notable or crystal-balling album articles to delete. – B.hotep •talk• 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on that? I would guess that the category Category:Upcoming albums, and not the template, makes these things easier for you and others, but maybe I'm missing something. --Conti|✉ 22:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Templates are easier to handle. More visible. More likely to be acted upon when you see a hundred or so articles per day. – B.hotep •talk• 22:40, 4 August 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:Future airline
<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 delete Magioladitis (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Superficial. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - ambivalent on this one. -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Superfluous. The text and references of the article are better able to inform the reader the temporal nature of the topic. Further, the template duplicates the functionality of future, and as such qualifies for speedy deletion type "T3" (see CSD). Yet another example of needless proliferation of future, which is perfecty adequate to be used for the purpose this template is used for. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, very limited scope. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It should be clear in the lead that it is about something in the future. A template for this is unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seriously? is this that big of a deal we need a separate template? Ejfetters (talk) 22:33, 2 August 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 series historical 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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (redirect but this is what is used)
 * (redirect but this is what is used)

Replaceable with simple text. Also, regardless of the fact that it's supposedly not suitable for List of 1632 characters, it's used quite extensively there. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest group nominations in the future. I can't understand why we have so many TfDs on the same subject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gotten chewed out in the past for group nominations, but I'm combining those that are of the same type. Also, these templates are not always easy to find let alone decipher, especially for the really, really nested ones.  There's over 60 templates in Category:1632 series templates, let alone the various subcategories and subtemplates.   It's been a pain the last few days.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see the level of template use prior to substitution and TfD listings here and here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The convolutions involved in this mess preclude mass-action; articles need cutting, substing, and AfDing; if the culprit behind this mess does not learn from this I'm considering an RfC/U. This is not the first time or the only mess. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Both — these are all inappropriate Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 20:54, 3 August 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 place
<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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)



This template only creates some unique formatting at 1632 series, difficult for other editors to work on the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — this is highly inappropriate Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 20:54, 3 August 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:ROF-1
<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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)



Replaceable with Ring of Fire (anthology) Ricky81682 (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — this is highly inappropriate Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, ROF-2 has been joined to this discussion as it has the same function, but for Ring of Fire II. Plastikspork (talk) 00:19, 4 August 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:35TEF
<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 deleted by User:Magioladitis. JPG-GR (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)



Unnecessarily complicated. Replaceable with red link 1635: The Eastern Front. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly,


 * with 1634: The Bavarian Crisis
 * with 1634: The Baltic War
 * with red link 1635: Soldier of Bohemia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment For the last three, even the noinclude information is indecipherable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All — these are all inappropriate Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 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:32FC
<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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)



Following Village pump (technical)/Archive 132, most of its uses have been eliminated. It looks to just be adding a nonbreaking space and then having its text hidden away, making it hidden. Replaceable with basic Help:Hidden Text. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — this is highly inappropriate Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 00:03, 4 August 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:AFCA A Division
<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 delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)



Links to Greek amateur football clubs. The articles themselves, if ever created, would fail notability. Magioladitis (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, not useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Masonpatriot (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prematurely created template. Even the main topic article doesn't exist. Jafeluv (talk) 14:15, 4 August 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:Sport Club Internacional 2008 Copa Sudamericana squad
<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 delete Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The teamplate is not employed and there is no need to create template for club honor. Matthew_hk <font color="Blue">t  c  16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a club's squad for one individual season is not worthy of Wikipedia. Current squads, which are updated every time a player leaves or joins a club, are fine; this is not. GiantSnowman 16:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, unused. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:53, 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:GG01
<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 delete all Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable with The Grantville Gazette. Unnecessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly


 * with Grantville Gazette II
 * with Grantville Gazette III
 * with Grantville Gazette IV
 * with Grantville Gazette V
 * with Grantville Gazette VI
 * with Grantville Gazette VII
 * with Grantville Gazette VIII
 * with Grantville Gazette IX (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette X
 * with Grantville Gazette XI (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette XII (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette XIII (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette XIV
 * with Grantville Gazette XV
 * with Grantville Gazette XVI
 * with Grantville Gazette XVII (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette XVIII (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette XIX (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette XX (red link)
 * with Grantville Gazette XXI (red link) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the lot; all inappropriate use of templates to cement this commercial franchise into the project by creating uneditable content. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - as nom says, replaceable and unnecessary. GiantSnowman 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Cruftcruft  Triplestop  x3  21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted many with G8. Can someone orphan the rest? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've restored them, as they weren't yet orphaned. JPG-GR (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but they are depended on pages that don't exist and never existed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I used a script to subst each of them and they should now all be orphaned in article space. Plastikspork (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 00:05, 4 August 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:R to 1632 section
<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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



Keeps track of which 1632 redirect pages redirect to sections. No. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the whole cloud. The only one that should be kept is 1632 series (in a reduced form). Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * nb: I've orphaned it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary. GiantSnowman 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Dspradau   → talk   16:12, 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.