Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 18



Template:WP Modern Talking Sidebar

 * 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD and below. –xenotalk 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Used on wikiproject, modern talking, for incorrectly made wikiproject with one member who is currently blocked. Wikiproject page up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MisterWiki/WikiProject Modern Talking per WP:AN/I consensus. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:09, 18 January 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:USC Awards Chron

 * 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 unnecessary navigation now that articles have been merged

The separate articles to which the template linked (e.g., USC Scripter Award 1987, USC Scripter Award 1988 etc.) have all been merged to USC Scripter Award. All of the links in the USC Awards Chron template link to the same article now, making it redundant. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Has there been any opposition to merging the articles? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Unschool made a merger proposal in November 2007 on the talk pages of all of the related articles that existed at the time. He proposed that they all be merged into one article and he suggested that he would do it. No response was made to his proposal on any of the talk pages but he never proceeded with the merge so I decided to be WP:BOLD and do it. Short answer, no opposition. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless. NB: Apoc2400, there wouldn't really be any rational basis for a merge objection anyway, as the stubs that were merged were essentially unexpandable and quite tiny, with no rationale for split existence under WP:SUMMARY. This is not the case with other kinds of rich-content annual articles. Even a just-the-facts (no editorial commentary) one like Snooker season 2008/2009 is complex enough for a separate article, but a bunch of 2–8 line pages don't cut it. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:42, 19 January 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:Message2

 * 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/userfy

Aside from being large, ugly, with  big screaming bold yet eyestraining text , and bearing a very blurry picture, it is redundant (serves the same purpose as Talkback, but does not serve a clearly variant purpose, such as Talkbacktiny and Whisperback do by being decreasingly intrusive; Message2 is just a different way of being equally intrusive), has fewer options (as in zero at all) than other templates of this sort, is not presently transcluded anywhere, and (judging by the what-links-here of the template's image) it has only ever been used for its intended purpose on talk pages and subst'd in the process a whopping two times in around 10 months of existence. I futzed with it a bit and then self-reverted; it's really a lost cause. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an assault on the visual senses ; also as a replicate of talkback 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Userfy per nom.-- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 00:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Userfy - ewww, no advantage over talkback, if your taste runs that way, use it from userspace. ··gracefool&#9786; 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Userfy - Allow me to fix that: "just a different way of being equally even more intrusive." Apologies to the author, but big, bright yellow text almost never looks good. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:59, 25 January 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:MTA New Zealand Formula Ford Championship tracks

 * 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

Notability. The entire article on the subject of this template is two sentences and a calendar. Is not obviously a candidate for such a template. Falcadore (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is more properly an AfD issue. This template, however, serves no needed navigation function, the purpose of navboxes, as the grand total of 4 (including the parent) articles are already categorized in the same simple category, and the parent article links them all together nicely. The navbox is thus redundant, useless clutter, and seems to be a case of fancruft (the "these [big] topics have navboxes so my [little] one has to have one too" idea that is behind a large number of this week's TfD nominees). —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:46, 19 January 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.