Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 20



Template:Rampla Juniors squad

 * 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) 23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)



Unmaintained template, player links have not been updated since September 2007, two of the three blue linked players have not played for the club since 2007. If nobody is prepared to maintain these templates they should be deleted to prevent the encyclopaedia displaing outdated and inaccurate information as per the deletion of other such templates here and here King of the  North   East  14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the  North   East  14:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete even if it was current, it is not a template that adds value. Teammates at a given time are not defining, and a "live" template requires far too much maintenance, both in terms of keeping the template up to date, as well as ensuring that it is not left in articles that are no longer applicable, etc.  Resolute 00:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - although these types of navboxes do add value, this one has not been properly maintained and I have no reason to believe it will be. The template should be able to be recreated if and when editors are available to properly maintain them. Jogurney (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's providing no value to the project right now, and if someone decides that they want to come back later and keep it maintained, it's easy enough to recreate it. --fuzzy510 (talk) 10:28, 22 May 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.

Brewbox

 * 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. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a multiple nomination for the following templates:



These templates are obsolete composite templates which have been replaced on all relevant articles with the unified infobox Brewery.

Additionally, WikiProject Beer/How to use the brewboxes and Template:Brewbox begin/doc are obsolete documentation pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all - as Chris has said, the templates are no longer used. And even infobox Brewery is being sidelined by Infobox_Company. In a number of articles where there is a Brewery infobox other editors are adding the Company infobox. There's no need for both, so we gradually making more use of just the Company one.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all redundant and unused. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as apparently obsolete. Robofish (talk) 01:09, 27 May 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:BBC Comedy

 * 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. If anyone would like to have the template's content to use in creating a list or populating a category, just ask me and I would be glad to provide it. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)



An unmanagable and rather pointless navigation box. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of BBC comedy programmes, so it's either going to be enormous, or by just selecting particular ones, is going to be inherently POV. Judging by the random selection of programmes added so far, I suspect the latter will be how this template evolves. Therefore, I think it best to nominate this now before it goes any further. Bob talk 08:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes hundreds but with the size of the template, I doubt the template will be a page big. There's already one Template:BBC Sci-fi which has been up since being relevant. So as I said, this templae is relevant and with the many BBC comedies, I doubt the template will reach one page big because of its size and also the fact that this is relevant. Plus it's up for deletion too soon. Wait for a couple more days to see how it goes and then we can come to a verdict whether to delete it or not. --Victory93 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the BBC have produced comedies since the earliest days of broadcasting, both on radio and television. "Comedy" is a highly subjective term - to what extent does this template include sitcoms, sketch shows, satires, comedy dramas, radio comedy, stand up, etc? It's completely unmanagable. I note that your science fiction template is similarly difficult to define, with programmes such as Goodnight Sweetheart mingling with Quatermass. I also note it doesn't include radio sci-fi programmes such as Journey into Space. I appreciate that this is a well-intended idea, but ultimately, the BBC comedy categories should suffice. Bob talk 09:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There I've added nearly every BBC comdey there is. There's of course some missing but would be happy if maybe you or someone could add more. And see it isn't that big so I think this template would be alright to stay and as it doesn't seem to violate any wikipedia rules and that it's relevant. --Victory93 (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Category:BBC television comedy, Category:BBC television sitcoms, Category:BBC radio comedy programmes for an indication as to how many entries this template would end up having, and that's just the ones that have articles. As the Wikipedia navbox guidelines suggest, this is a bad idea because it will "Take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related". Thus, while a navbox detailing the four series of Blackadder is useful, because it links all the related articles, your navbox under the vague "BBC Comedy" title has no real link other than they were made at some point in history by the BBC, and they had comedic content. I would perhaps suggest not adding any further links until this matter has been resolved. Bob talk 12:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, as articles have only a tangential connection to one another. This is what categories are for, and I do believe they already exist. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, only a tangential connection among topics. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The potential to be huge! The JPS talk to me  21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a very good idea. If it gets too big, split it. That a particular network produced a show is a very central connection, not a tangential one. DGG (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not all of these series are produced by the BBC. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Remarkably trivial intersection, as overwhelmingly, one program will have absolutely no relationship or relevance to any other. While categories, lists and templates are not mutually exclusive, this is an example of categorization being good, but templating being bad. Resolute 03:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Garion96 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure clutter. Exactly the same arguments apply to Template:BBC Sci-fi. That one should be deleted too. Flowerparty ☀ 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but definitely needs improvement  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyRide (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep helps navagation The C of E (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this should be a Category not a template. BUC (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - bad idea for a template, it'll quickly grow too large to be of any use. I agree with the above comment that this should be a category instead. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --John (talk) 03:06, 27 May 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:Iff

 * 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. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)



Unnecessary template. All this does is insert the words 'if and only if'. It's only used on one page, Philosophy of logic, and only twice there - it would be trivially easy to substitute those uses. Templates shouldn't be used simply to avoid retyping text, particularly when it's as basic as this. Robofish (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. "If and only if" is hardly difficult to type. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Why do people make so many stupid templates like this anyway? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Now, it's not used anywhere in mainspace. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 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:Ballygunner Hurling Team

 * 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) 23:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)



club achieved nothing special in 2008 to need a template Gnevin (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough entries so we now need "something special in 2008"? Not a reason for deletion (do you know how many teams with templates achieved nothing special in 2008?)  Collect (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems to be a navbox for the club's squad in 2008 only, not a general template for the club. If that is the case, then "achieved nothing special in 2008" is a perfectly valid reason for deletion, since we do not need templates reflecting every sports club's composition for every year. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as article clutter. Teammates in any given season are not defining, even in championship years, which this was not. Resolute 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost entirely redlinked. No use.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 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:Muse singles

 * 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. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)



Redundant to Muse. PC78 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for above-mentioned reason. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - almost all these links are already in the Muse template. Robofish (talk) 01:06, 27 May 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:List of Generations

 * 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. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)



Arbitrary list that includes what some consider generations; (Generation Jones and MTV Generation are both disputed, and some other "generations" around Y and Z are also used.) In some cases (MTV Generation), chronological order may be also be questioned. Completing nomination by, although he may have additional reasons for nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs work - the important thing about the template is that it does what topic boxes are supposed to do, namely give people an overview of a topic and the main concepts within. In fact we need lots more of them. That's not to say that I disagree with the above criticisms, but just deleting something is often just not a real solution. First, its not about "generations," its about "generational names" or "generational metanyms" used in Western culture, or else as defined according to largely Western concepts. Second there's no reason to not include dates. Understanding that these are somewhat variable if not altogether subjective and neologistic, we can generally illustrate what they mean by use of small bell curve graphs indicating a bulge in a range between two cutoff dates. We can, should, and maybe even must also avoid using "MTV" in any macrocultural concept whatsoever, even unto as far as making up our own term to replace it. And why the bolded links? Did the template authors hope to draw attention to the importance of the concept by employing glyph accentuation techniques? -Stevertigo 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unresolvable issues with POV and original research. I wouldn't object to this as a category (as indeed we have, Category:Cultural generations), but as a navigational template it gives an unjustified sense of objectivity, as though this represents some 'official' list of generations. Most or all of these are vague, non-universally-accepted ideas, and the existence of this template misleads users to think otherwise. Robofish (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Cultural generations includes both generations that describe "horizontal" groups (generational) as well as "vertical" groups (cohorts), and so is not that suitable for navigation between generations. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete agree w/ comments about unresolvable issues with POV and original research. RollandWaters (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rationale: the template is usable on a very limited set of U.S.-specific topics. A link to List of generations placed in the lead will do the same service, and circumvent direct display of issues raised by Arthur Rubin and Robofish. NVO (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: It does have some rationale but its topic does what its supposed to do. South Bay    (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Based primarily on a theory in a single book, that Howe & Strauss, that has almost no acceptance by serious historians. DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective original content with the inclusion of some "generations" that are arbitrary and disputed.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Worth keeping, but should remove lass notable generations like MTV Generation. Generation Jones should stay because it has become widely accepted enough, and should not be listed seperate from the other main generations. Probably remove older generations, and make it a template of living generations SallyRide (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: this account was created May 23. --  Wikipedical (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keap To allow easy navigation between generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi2 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If some of the linked articles are questionable vis a vis notability or OR, that can be dealt with through AfD. Toohool (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Toohool. Especially OK while it only lists generations chronologically without dates. (It is a pity no consensus can be reached to even include indicative dates in List of generations -- in fact that page is simple enough to almost become this template now!) Mark Hurd (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pseudoscientific fantacrap. While you're at it, delete all the articles it points to, also. --70.131.60.126 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 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.