Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 30



Maintenance subtemplates of convert

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Template:Convert/Maintenance/outputs/US

Unused template that includes many non-existant templates flooding the broken template list. Jacob.jose (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Convert/Maintenance/outputs/U.S.

Unused template that includes many non-existant templates flooding the broken template list. Jacob.jose (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Convert/Maintenance/and

Unused template that includes many non-existant templates flooding the broken template list. --Jacob.jose (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Not transcluded but not unused. The purpose of these maintainence subpages are the up keep and improvement of convert.  If they are flooding broken template lists, I can understand the problem but I don't believe deletion is the solution.  Instead they can be enclosed in "pre"s, commented out or something when not in immediate use. J IM ptalk·cont 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've eliminated transclusions of the "broken" subtemplates (i.e. subtemplates yet to be created) on not only the pages mentioned but on all convert maintenance pages. Thus these should no longer be clogging up lists.  However, I'm still going to want to keep them around for up keep purposes. J IM ptalk·cont 13:41, 1 June 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:TOJLL-B

 * 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) 18:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)



The navbox is entirely full of redlinks. There's no need for it.  Yarnalgo  talk to me 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Junior league sports teams usually are not individually notable. This navbox not only fails to facilitate navigation but also encourages creation of articles about non-notable entities. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:00, 31 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:Tom Kenny

 * 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) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)



Not often you get navboxes detailing every work an actor has been in and I'm not surprised why. This is redundant to the actor's article and regardless of how much he has done there doesn't seem a point to a navbox listing each television show or movie he's lent his skills to. Others seem to agree, the template has few transclusions and going by the contribs of the single person adding it to articles, all but one of the attempts have been reverted. treelo radda  19:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcus2 (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Yarnalgo  talk to me 02:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Treelo, doesn't warrant a template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:06, 31 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:FootballAID

 * 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) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)



Abandoned in 2007. Not used anymore. Magioladitis (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unused and unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 1 June 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:AssignedPA

 * 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 to delete. --··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)



This template is completely inaccurate. Assigned PA means a block of IP addresses assigned by a regional registry (RIPE, ARIN etc) to an LIR (Local Internet Registry), typically an ISP. The LIR then divides it up among the organisations that are its customers or uses it for its own infrastructure. No distinction is made between IP addresses that are then assigned to individual end users either statically or dynamically. All ISP DSL and cable modem dynamic IP pools are PA (example. The other type of assignment is PI (Provider Independent), which refers to blocks assigned to organisations which are not LIRs - typically because they get their connectivity from more than one ISP for redundancy (they will also typically have their own AS number and be using multi-homed BGP as a routing protocol). Again, PI doesn't specify either a static or dynamic assignment of an individual IP address. here are some more specific details about the difference. Maccy69 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found from examining editing habits that these addresses do appear to be statically allocated to single users or computers at least for a substantial time, hence the wording of the template. It was intended to bridge the gap between dynamic and static IPs. Perhaps it could be rejigged to say "Static IP" rather than "Assigned PA". Rodhull  andemu  18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've come to an erroneous conclusion based on the data you've seen. Almost all IP addresses are PA and dynamic ISP ones are pretty much guaranteed to be PA (it would be highly unusual for an ISP not to also be an LIR). The only way you can tell if an address is dynamic is if it says so in either the host name or the registry database entry (the Inetnum object). The problem is that both of these are subject to the whims of the ISP's convention for describing them. I'd find it hard to be sure that an IP address was static rather than dynamic - and even then it could still have been given to a firewall or a proxy server and be shared by many users. The length of time issue is also ISP dependent - a Virgin Media cable modem will typically keep the same address, whereas a BT DSL modem will typically get a new address every time the user connects. I think you have a laudable aim here, but there isn't enough certainty to give a more specific description than those covered by the other shared IP and ISP templates. Maccy69 (talk) 18:28, 30 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:Uw-sandbox

 * 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.  So Why  13:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)



This template is pointless because a bot already clears the sandbox automatically if someone removes and/or modifies the sandbox header. Logan | Talk 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I just used it myself, so obvisouly the bot doesn't catch it every time --I dream of horses (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep There are some idiots who vandalize the sandbox in ways other than removing the header. This template can be used to tell them that vandalism or other malicious editing is unwelcome even in the sandbox. Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:13, 12 June 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:Eighthdoctorcompanions

 * 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 to delete. Please take discussion concerning refactoring of the template to the talk page for the template (or continue the discussion at WT:WHO). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)



This template is completely redundant; there is one episode and one companion only, and it does not connect to any other of the companion templates. It is totally unnecessary. U-Mos (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Used in Template:Doctorwhocompanions, which needs an entry for the eighth doctor. Edgepedia (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment But does it need to exist seperately? Why not just use raw code in the Doctorwhocompanions template for the eighth Doctor? In fact, I'd be in favour for re-doing the bigger template so it takes up less room, and I may indeed give it a go right now. U-Mos (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See the results of my handiwork at the aforelinked Template:Doctorwhocompanions. U-Mos (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - don't see why this needs a seperate template when it only covers one story and one companion. If it's only use is to be stuck inside another template, then that other template can be rearranged to include the same information in another way.  You could easily merge the other eighth doctor templates all into one (divided into different areas if you want to keep those who argue about a canon which does not actually exist happy) as well. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Edgepedia. This template is a subtemplate to Doctorwhocompanions and thus exists not to use in article but to have a more organized main template (which would otherwise be very long). Subtemplates are perfectly acceptable and are useful for organisational reasons. I see no reason to delete it just because we could also have cluttered code instead... Regards  So Why  21:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the big companions template so it is all code, and I believe it's better for it. U-Mos (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Edgepedia and SoWhy. This is a sub-template just as the other Nthdoctorcompanions templates; moving the code only complicates maintainence and organisation, and duplicates the code, which is what templates are designed to avaoid. Why complicate matters when you can keep it simple? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are way more complicated things here. The Eighthdoctorcompanion template takes up very few lines of code, and is only useful within the other template. Its seperate existence is not justified. The bigger template itself is pretty unnecessary too; why look at that complicated barrage of templates within templates when you could just have a list? Noting my bold edit there didn't stick (fair enough as I understand the maintenace issues etc.), perhaps even a simple list would serve a better purpose there? Keep the details of who joined in what episode for the seperate Doctor companion templates, and just have lists under the headings of each successive Doctor for the companion article's infobox? That woudl be far easier on the eye (not to mention the brain). U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These templates are maintained for consistency; they are sorted by Doctor, so they are implemented the same way. You are free to come up with an alternative, but please do so without removing any data from the current templates. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, does it actually matter which companion joined in which episode when considering an overview of every Doctor's companions? There's always going to be information missing, eg. when companions join at the very end of a serial like Dodo. It doesn't really hold as an argument to keep such a waste of space in existence. The detail can be kept for the seperate companion templates, as they are, with the exception of the pointless Eighth doctor one. U-Mos (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: discussion relevant to this template and the parent template doctorwhocompanions is underway at WT:WHO. It might be worthwhile for the closer of this to wait until a consensus is reached there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 June 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:Current Pennsylvania State Senators

 * 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. The discussion here has not shown that there is consensus for deleting this template or such templates in general. The issue might be better served if raised in a central discussion concerning multiple or all such templates. Regards  So Why  13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)



Redundant template listing all current PA State Senators. A mere reproduction of the list at Pennsylvania State Senate. Also, seeAvoid template creep. Blargh29 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a fairly standard and useful navigational template used on the articles of Pennsylvania State Senate members, and it's hardly the only one out there.Avoid template creep is more about excessive numbers of navboxes on articles, but a random sampling of articles here suggests that's not a problem. BryanG (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see how it is useful. It duplicates the list at Pennsylvania State Senate. I would vote delete on the others, but my edits are generally limited to Pennsylvania-specific articles, so I haven't come across the others.--Blargh29 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware there's a listing there, but this is more for moving between the bios of the senators. People browse articles in different ways, we have duplicate ways of getting at information all the time. That's not a bad thing. BryanG (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Garion96 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not really useful SallyRide (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally find the template to be rather useful for navigating between articles about State Senators, perhaps even more useful than the list in Pennsylvania State Senate. Weak keep pending formation of a more general consensus regarding "Current members of [Legislature]" navboxes. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as someone who frequently navigates through politicians pages, i find it usual. but seriously, who cares. who is it bothering?Thismightbezach (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per BryanG. Furthermore the similar box present for US senate. Astuishin  (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- too many of these. We've managed to get rid of some with hundreds of names. (It's too bad we have to do them one at a time.) We have categories and succession boxes for this, plastering pages with the same information is redundant.
 * 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.