Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 3



Template:WikiProject My Chemical Romance

 * 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

WikiProject My Chemical Romance is defunct and has been transformed into a task force of WikiProject Emo (see WP:MCR). WikiProject Emo now contains support for the task force. All uses of WikiProject My Chemical Romance in the mainspace have been replaced with the the task force parameter in WikiProject Emo, so the old MCR project template is now completely deprecated. I thought this was an easy speedy G6, and tagged it as such, but for some reason Closedmouth and SoWhy both declined speedy, even though all of the other templates and subpages of the old MCR project have been G6 speedied without any issue. IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: My decline was procedural because IllaZilla re-tagged the article after an Closedmouth declined it. Regards  So Why  19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 04:29, 4 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:FlamesFirstPick

 * 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 --Icewedge (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Number three for today, and probably more controversial than the other two. Discussion at WT:HOCKEY has led to some agreement that templates such as this are little more than clutter, as it is hardly notable or relevant to Dion Phaneuf's article that Al MacInnis was drafted 22 years earlier, for example. It is notable that he was a first round pick, however, and there has been support for the WP:NAVBOX essay's suggestion that such templates should be replaced with succession boxes. I have done that in this case, and and now putting this template up for deletion as a test case, as ultimately, it is my intention to replace all draft pick and coach templates with succession boxes per this style. Basically, as a result of this change, this template is unsused, and not likely to be reused. Resolute 17:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. These sorts of templates should be replaced by succession boxes. -Djsasso (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that a succession box would be the best way to convey this information. Robofish (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - also per nom, WP:HOCKEY discussion.  black ngold29  17:31, 4 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:EA-NHL-series

 * 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 --Alexf(talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar reasons as the first overall draft pick template below. Redundant to the succession boxes in some articles, but really, I can't find any reason why this is even notable or defining for an individual player. It would be like creating templates and succession boxes for each player who was card #1 in any given year's trading card set. Not to mention that the EA Sports series isn't the only hockey/sports game on the market, and creating templates/succession boxes for each would be completely ridiculous. Resolute 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not really a defining aspect for a professional player and redundant as mentioned. WP:NAVBOX recommends succession boxes in such situations. -Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or create templates for each different product which has multiple athletes endorsing it (e.g. Gatorade, Nike shoes, etc.). No wait, don't do that. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  black ngold29  17:32, 4 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:NHL FirstOverallDraftPicks

 * 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 --Alexf(talk) 01:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

per WP:EMBED, WP:NAVBOX and discussion at WT:HOCKEY. Other first overall draft picks are not relevant to each individual's biography, nor are these other players defining. The template is also redundant to the succession box on each article that points to List of first overall NHL draft picks. Resolute 15:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete also per nom.  black ngold29  15:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Redundant and adds to clutter hiding the truely relevant links. -Djsasso (talk) 16:28, 3 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:ORList

 * 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

Template is redundant to a better-designed existing template - Original research. Snappy (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP This template was intended to make it clear what the problem was, the Original research was too generic and some editors failed to understand the need for both inclusion and exclusion critera. The Original research was used on soccer articles, and was met with little success, however the famous players template in which the problems were explicityly stated was significantly more succesful, a template on which this one was based. Fasach Nua (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I suggest updating the Original research template with more options, rather than creating yet another duplicate. Snappy (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - seems like a possibly useful template, and different enough from OR to be worth keeping. It is a bit similar to Listcruft, however. Robofish (talk) 04:28, 4 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:Polo De Billion

 * 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 --Alexf(talk) 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Entirely redlinks, not usefully employed anywhere. - Vianello (Talk) 02:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, entirely useless. Robofish (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * G8 as dependent on nonexistant article. Why is everyone so afraid to speedy these days? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't speedy it as G8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can too. I've tagged parentless templates as G8 before and they've gone down. Would you care to tell me how this is not "dependent on a nonexistant article"? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As easy and convenient as it would be to G8 a template of this nature, G8 is there primarily to deal with orphaned talk pages and redirects - pages totally dependent on a single page, which, if deleted, renders the other page useless. Templates are not in that same vein, because they are not totally dependent on a single page.  I looked at T3 as an option, and even that doesn't fit properly, as it fails the second half of that criterion.  Speedies are meant to fit fairly strict criteria, and this one didn't fit any of them.  I have no doubt that the template will get zapped at the end of this, but often it's better to take something through the longer process as something of a matter of insurance, making sure it stays deleted.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointless template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:13, 4 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:Numbers rating

 * 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 Happy‑melon 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NumberTalk does the job better. Wikiproject doesn't seem to rate articles. Moreover, Numbers rating uses old coding. NumberTalk uses standarised wiki code. If rating is needed NumberTalk can be modified to do that. Numbers rating is now orphan as well. Magioladitis (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Maths rating seems to use the same coding. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NumberTalk uses WPBannerMeta as all the other wikiproject templates nowadays. Numbers rating doesn't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen several that don't. I've converted several to WPBannerMeta, and there are still many that don't use it. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Last week it was used on alot of articles, IIRC, more than NumberTalk. So at the very least it should remain as a redirect, since the wikiproject is called "Numbers", not "Number", and it matches the naming of the math banner. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said on Template talk:Numbers rating, every page with this template also seems to have NumberTalk, so redirecting would just cause some pages to have two copies of the same banner which is not desirable. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have lots of R from shortcut for WikiProject banners for lots of WikiProjects, I fail to see why this won't be kept as a redirect, since obvious both names have been around for a while and familiar to project members. Duplicate banners is a cleanup issue, not a reason to not have a redirect. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The WikiProject has not been informed that we wish to delete one of its templates. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and rename Template:NumberTalk to the more conventional and descriptive Template:WikiProject Numbers. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposed renaming is a very good idea. The current name makes no sense, combines two words without space against our new standards and the proposed name has the same format like many (maybe all) other projects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 3 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.