Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 24



Unused Template:Infobox Canadian political party/ templates

 * 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 per clear consensus to cleanup infoboxes for political parties. The redirects were created recently when someone fixed the capitalisation of the infobox's name and could also speedy deleted it. Magioladitis (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

with corresponding redirects

No transclusions and don't seem to be used in any way in. Svick (talk) 22:26, 24 October 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:Infobox catalan city

 * 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

Redundant to infobox settlement. Also a bit suspcious of the indication it is a seperate country, looks like Catalan seperatism to me... Himalayan   21:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with Infobox settlement. A city is a clear case of a settlement, and it is undesirable for settlement templates to be regionalized down to the sub-national level. (Imagine the proliferation of redundant templates that approach would create: Infobox Ontario city, Infobox Norfolk city, Infobox Aquitaine city, etc.) --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 27 October 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:Regnum

 * 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) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)



These templates are all part of the old / infobox. The purpose of each is to generate the English name of the corresponding "rank". These are all unnecessary and deprecated since 2007. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. All unused (except for a couple in user sandboxes) and no longer needed. --RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 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:Infobox City Philippines, Template:Infobox Philippine province

 * 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

Redundant to infobox settlement as evidence by the top 20 cities in Philippines like Manila etc. Pin maps are easily displayed in standard too. Province templates also redundant.. Himalayan  19:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How many templates redundant to infobox settlement are left out there? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete both as redundant to the widely used and more complete . --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 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:19 Entertainment

 * 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 deleted by with a reason of "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Closing this discussion since OverlordQ seems to have overlooked that detail. (Non-admin closure.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unused and useless template. It appears to be a summary which has no purpose when transcluding.  Zoo Fari  16:06, 24 October 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:AT Coasters

 * 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 unused and redundant

Redundant with Alton Towers. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 05:10, 24 October 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:Type A submarine

 * 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, but redirect Template:A type submarine.

Redundant with A type submarine. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 05:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect Template:A type submarine to it. The naming of Template:Type A submarine and the wording in the navbox itself better match the submarine class articles to which the template links. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur: Keep and redirect Template:A type submarine to it. - 66.245.217.117 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 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:Armcore Project

 * 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

Red/wrong links. Unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No main article and the few valid links are to articles unrelated to the band. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 24 October 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:Armageddon

 * 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

Unused and redundant with WWEPPV. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as badly named, and redundant. 76.66.195.206 (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Would have been better just to redirect it, but delete it anyway.-- Will C  10:38, 26 October 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.