Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 11



Template:2009 Division I FCS independent football standings

 * 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

Templatecruft. There are no conference standings for teams that aren't in a conference. These three teams have nothing to do with each other, except for the fact that they are not in a conference. Only one of them - 2009 Savannah State Tigers football team - even has a season article - and I can't for the life of me see a reason to have a season article on a IAA team that isn't bound for the national championship. (That's a separate issue, though.) There are no standings for independent teams and it doesn't make sense to have an infobox for it. B (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a novel synthesis of existing statistics. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why is this template any less important than the other templates currently used at 2009 NCAA Division I FCS football season article. The template can also be used on the individual school pages or within the College Football Wikiproject. While the 2009 Savannah State Tigers football team is the only article currently written, that does not mean the others may not have an article drafted before the season has concluded. -- Absolon S. Kent (chat),
 * It's less important because the other templates reflect real standings. Grouping these three schools results together separately is a novel synthesis.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this deletion is successful, where do the records for these teams go? It should be obvious that these teams are not in a conference, because there is no mention of conference record in the template. Additionally, there are only a handful of season articles (for this year) for FCS teams? Under your rationale, all of the other templates should be deleted as well. Music+mas (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no argument made for the other templates, because these reflect real standings. The statement in the nomination is that "there are no standings for independent teams".  This template effectively creates standings when none exist in the real world.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – This is no more of a novel synthesis than ESPN uses in its season standings for FCS teams. As a matter of fact, ESPN maintains a table for FCS independents at the linked location. Also, while there may be no "standings" as such for independent teams, they remain eligible to be invited to the FCS championship tournament. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dale Arnett. If ESPN tracks their "standings", then I would say the synthesis argument doesn't apply, and that was the best argument for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 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:PD-Meyers

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an orphaned image license template. All images which would use this template should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, so having this template makes it more likely that users will incorrectly upload the image here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. This template was probably quite useful when it was created in 2004, but has been rendered unnecessary with the adoption of Commons.  — Kralizec! (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add Copy to Wikimedia Commons to track any suitable images. They should be uploaded to Commons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be.  It's still a valid licence, and we shouldn't stop people uploading images with it.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Images will quite likely be uploaded here under this license (and the other three below) if the template is kept here; however, if it is deleted, I think it likely that most users who have any experience with Wikipedia would upload the image to Commons instead. Moving an image to Commons takes more effort, IMO, than uploading the image in the first place (assuming that the image is already ready-for-use) because there are more steps involved; why more than double the effort to do something that should have originally been done anyway? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone tries to upload an image here under a free licence, and finds none suitable, do they necessarily know that they should be uploading it to Commons? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Upload and Special:Upload make the existence of Commons pretty clear, and especially if its mentioned in the template's deletion log I wouldn't think that there would be a problem. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Uploadtext seems strangely silent on this topic. If someone selects a free licence when they upload, are they presented with a big red flashing "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS HERE INSTEAD OF COMMONS?" or something similar, or do the free licences just not show up?  81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Upload has a fairly big notice about it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it seems that the "upload" link no longer points to Special:Upload, so that's what people see. However, while free images should be uploaded to Commons, there's no reason to delete a template for what is essentially a free and therefore valid licence.  Add Commons ok and tell newbie uploaders off when they do it.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the arguments of the 81.* ip editors. We can try to encourage editors to upload to Commons, but if they do it here anyway then they should be able to select the valid license. --RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 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:Cc-by-sa-2.1-jp

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an orphaned image license template. All images which would use this template should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, so having this template makes it more likely that users will incorrectly upload the image here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. This template really is not necessary at the media in question should be uploaded at Commons.  — Kralizec! (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add Copy to Wikimedia Commons to track any suitable images. They should be uploaded to Commons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be.  It's still a valid licence, and we shouldn't stop people uploading images with it.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per 81.111.114.131 and the similar discussion for the PD-Meyers template above. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 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:UN map

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an orphaned image license template. All images which would use this template should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, so having this template makes it more likely that users will incorrectly upload the image here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add Copy to Wikimedia Commons to track any suitable images. They should be uploaded to Commons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be.  It's still a valid licence, and we shouldn't stop people uploading images with it.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per 81.111.114.131 and the similar discussions above. --RL0919 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 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:Agência Brasil

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an orphaned image license template. All images which would use this template should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, so having this template makes it more likely that users will incorrectly upload the image here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. While no doubt useful when this template was created back in 2004, it is now unnecessary as the images requiring its use are now uploaded at Commons.  — Kralizec! (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add Copy to Wikimedia Commons to track any suitable images. They should be uploaded to Commons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be.  It's still a valid licence, and we shouldn't stop people uploading images with it.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per 81.111.114.131 and the similar discussions above. --RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 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:P.

 * 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 creator and only significant editor. I had some purpose in creating this, but I really can't remember it. Completely redundant. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unused citation template. Literally all this template does is insert "p." between the source name and page number. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 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:Contents 2

 * 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) 02:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)



Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no edits since its creation in 2006. --RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted as un-used. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 14 September 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 (2nd nomination)

 * 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 as replaceable by or for more frequently changing IPs, there is.

The reason for nomination is exactly the same as Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 30, which was a discussion consisting only of the nominator and the creator. This template is based on a complete misunderstanding, that ASSIGNED PA addresses are assigned to the user of the IP. In fact they are assigned to the ISP who can then re-assign them to whoever they want as frequently as they want. A quick example of a dynamic IP which is ASSIGNED PA is: (check the WHOIS link). ASSIGNED PA is therefore irrelevant to blocking and admins; this template is misleading and should be deleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, perhaps the template should be recreated as "StaticIP", which is what I thought I meant- in which case I'd have no objection to deletion. Rodhull  andemu  19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have dynamicIP, intended for IPs which switch relatively frequently. However I would be wary of a static IP template. I often say that all IPs are dynamic, it's just a question of timing. This is especially the case for IP addresses assigned to ISPs, including some of those using this template. In some cases I find that the whois template is the best label for static IPs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly an ISP I was with a while back suggested their assignments were "pseudo-static" - technically, they were dynamic and subject to change at any time, however, this typically only happened when there was a major outage that caused all their DHCP leases to disappear. However, this is their local assignments, and is not the same as ASSIGNment.  ASSIGNED PA does not mean static.  It simply means that the address belongs to a given operator.  I forget the rules on delegation, but there are certainly ISPs that delegate management of their IP address ranges to local administrators.  As such, I'm not sure what to make of this template.  I can understand that we need to inform admins if we have found IP address ranges that we know to be highly variable (of the "new user every 24 hours" type).  I find the idea of tagging an IP address as "static" or "near-static" both unnecessary and problematic.  Unless someone has gone around assigning a fixed IP address to everything in their class A, the term "static IP" isn't helpful.  Even the legendary anon on Comcast got their address switched after 4 years.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. The misunderstanding that "Assigned PA" means the same as "static IP" is an easy and completely understandable mistake to make.  However as Zzuuzz indicated, even static IP assignments only give the illusion of being static and we can use whois for those. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:46, 12 September 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:Contents right

 * 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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)



Unused and redundant to TOC right. --RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to TOC right. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per above. Robofish (talk) 01:00, 14 September 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:Global citation

 * 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) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)



Unused and not mentioned at Citation templates. The second template, R000109, is a hardcoded instance of the first. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both as per nomination. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 14 September 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:Country data Spratly Islands

 * 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 deletion — Kralizec! (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably created for use with flagicon, but the white flag should not be used as a placeholder for a place with disputed sovereignty. If no flag is appropriate for the Spratly Islands, then use noflag if necessary to render nothing, but a white flag is misleading and inaccurate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Buaidh (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so perhaps we should close as a G7 speedy..? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems like a well-meaning effort by an editor who might not be aware of the noflag option. --RL0919 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 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:Previouslycategorised

 * 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) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)



Not in use at all. Even the categories it sorts into don't exist... And redundant to Uncat.

Apart from that, have a look what it says: "This page previously appeared in one or more categories. Please categorise it so it may be associated with related pages." If you know the page used to be categorised, why not restore those categories? And if they were inappropriate, then what is the relevance of the fact that they were there? Debresser (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and redundant to much more widely used tags. --RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. I do not even understand why we would ever use.  — Kralizec! (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems redundant to Uncategorized and More categories. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 14 September 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.