Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 22



Template:Football kit/pattern list

 * 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) 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)



In order to provide the most complete listing of kit patterns, new patterns should be categorized appropriately and viewed through Commons categories. This will help reduce the number of places where the patterns must be linked and generally help to keep things more orderly. Udeezy (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to Category:"Template:Football_kit"_materials, or wherever - though having the types of image (striped, hooped, etc) together is very helpful. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the basic patterns in the article or redirect providing they would be sorted in subcategories by design like in that page. The subcategories would need subcategorising (and they may need to be subcategorised too) as there are far too MANY patterns uploaded to Commons to have them listed as just stripes, hoops etc.  VEO one five 11:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer for this to be moved to projectspace (i.e. WikiProject Football/football kit patterns) and reworked so as to be a pointer to Commons. Its present form is, as I said to the nominator, unmaintainable, and we really should be doing something about that, but if it can be repurposed that's better than deleting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Much easier to navigate than Commons, but we do have a serious problem here: some patterns are on this page but not on Commons and vice-versa. –Half Price (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2010 (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:S-line/WMATA left/Purple

 * 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 both. Airplaneman  ✈  02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also nominating its complement, S-line/WMATA right/Purple.

Unused succession templates for a line whose stations (other than termini) don't have articles yet, and is at least 6 years in the future. &mdash; Train2104 (talk· contribs· count· email) 23:11, 22 August 2010 (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:RichardandKahlan

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

unused Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as orphaned. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:46, 23 August 2010 (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.

MLB yearly infobox variants

 * 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 Template:MLB yearly infobox alt to Template:MLB yearly infobox and Template:MLB yearly infobox-pre1969 alt to Template:MLB yearly infobox-pre1969, since the requested changes seem to have been made. Airplaneman  ✈  03:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"alt" versions are redundant forks of MLB yearly infobox/MLB yearly infobox-pre1969, whose documentation says "Alternate version with General Manager included". That parameter should be added as an optional part of the parent template.

is redundant fork of and was "was created to remove the inclusion of divisions for seasons prior to 1969". Again, this should be handled by the parent templates. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom (pending the change to the other template, of course). -Dewelar (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note subsequent addition of other templates. Please amend your !vote accordingly, then remove this comment; or simply remove this comment if your vote still applies. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the rationale is the same (i.e., the only difference between the various boxes are optional fields) then my vote is the same. Have you verified that this is the case? -Dewelar (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Should not be deleted until parent infobox is fixed to handle the optional parameters. Spanneraol (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We're working on that now, but having a couple minor formatting glitches. -Dewelar (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: The optional GM field has now been added to MLB yearly infobox/MLB yearly infobox-pre1969, so the alt versions can now be safely redirected. There is still no accepted solution to the formatting issue with making the division field optional to the base template, but at least we can cut from four to two for now. -Dewelar (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (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:Welling United F.C. 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. Airplaneman  ✈  02:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Rarely updated template with just the three blue links. EchetusXe 11:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not link enough articles to be deemed useful. Big  Dom  12:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life  talk  14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:13, 27 August 2010 (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:Redditch United F.C. 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. Airplaneman  ✈  02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Full completely of red links and is years out of date. EchetusXe 10:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Useless. Big  Dom  12:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The worst one I've seen. The creator is still active, so either forgot about it or couldn't be bothered updating. Argyle 4 Life  talk  14:30, 26 August 2010 (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:Life in Pakistan

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We have Template:Pakistan topics to explain whatever there is in Pakistan. I can't understand the aim of this template. Farjad0322 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no need for this. We already have Pakistan topics. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 19:48, 22 August 2010 (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:DisneyVillains

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  02:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A similar template has been created before and was deleted for inconsistency, therefore this one, follows the same criteria and should also be deleted. Esb94 (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - This only helps the person who created it. Farjad0322 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no criteria for what consistitutes a villain, other than WP:OR or opinion. SpikeJones (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (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:World Universities Debating Ranking

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  02:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that this templates source is questionable with regard to being a reliable source (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_72 and  Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56) and these rankings are not officially recognized by the World Universities Debating Council this should be deleted as one persons OR. Codf1977 (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2010 (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:WP RSS

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  02:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only used on one page and for one use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only used once for no strong reason. Farjad0322 (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (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.