Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 26



Template:Austelevisionschedules

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Austelevisionschedules

Lots of redlinks which encourage the creation of articles with nothing but TV schedules (see the 2 bluelinks). &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE the two linked articles should also be deleted. --Salix (talk): 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh seems like theres been extensive discussions on TV schedules see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30.--Salix (talk): 22:33, 26 September 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:HHM

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * HHM

Unused (only a single transclusion within an old talk page discussion), no evidence of substitutions. No activity since creation four years ago. PC78 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Harmless, and could be useful in the future. It's not redundant or deprecated. It's only crime is lack of use. --Bsherr (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where would you see it being used? Any relevant articles prefixed with "HM"? Would that be desirable, bearing in mind that it isn't currently used? If kept it's going to need a little work. It should probably conform to the style of other hatnote type templates, and it should ideally be categorised somewhere. PC78 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the intention is that it be used inline, rather than as a hatnote. It could be used in any appropriate artice in which His/Her Magesty is used in text, no? --Bsherr (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, dunno; it doesn't look like it should be used inline to me. Where would it go in that case? PC78 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you construe it as a hatnote, it probably has no use. Inline, it could put separate paragraphs at the bottom of an lead to an article. Eh, ok, delete. --Bsherr (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete too specific text to be useful if might possibly be used on Her Majesty's Ship but it seems just as simple to type the text directly. I did think there might be a lot of ships which might need such a notice but it seems like a lot of pages just use the HMS prefix, see for example HMS Beagle.--Salix (talk): 21:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the rationale behind this, but I don't think we can expect this to ever be widely-enough deployed that it saves us any real level of effort as compared to simply manually editing articles on current ships should the reigning monarch ever happen to be a man again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:24, 27 September 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.

Various TFA 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. WOSlinker (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * TFAforApril2004
 * TFAforApril2005
 * TFAforAugust2004
 * TFAforAugust2005
 * TFAforDecember2004
 * TFAforDecember2005
 * TFAforFebruary2004
 * TFAforFebruary2005
 * TFAforJanuary2005
 * TFAforJuly2004
 * TFAforJuly2005
 * TFAforJune2004
 * TFAforJune2005
 * TFAforMarch2004
 * TFAforMarch2005
 * TFAforMay2004
 * TFAforMay2005
 * TFAforNovember2004
 * TFAforNovember2005
 * TFAforOctober2004
 * TFAforOctober2005
 * TFAforSeptember2004
 * TFAforSeptember2005

All single use that should be substituted on the article. (Note: Have not tagged all the templates). -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Substitute - per the nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 21:44, 26 September 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:IUP2

 * 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. Magioladitis (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IUP2

Template is used in 1 article as a mere listing of academic programs at a university.GrapedApe (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a single purpose template. It's not being used anywhere so far as I can see, so I assume it's already been substituted. PC78 (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - for PC78's reasons. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 26 September 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:Nonce

 * 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 Per WP:SNOW a personal neologism. Salix (talk): 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonce

The essay linked to Nonce introductions, is unrelated to either definition of Nonce and hence OR. This template should not be being applied in mainspace to any article to then link it to a personal neologism. I sorta think the essay needs a rename if it is to stick around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Templating articles with an neologism that an editor seems to have made up one day is a bad idea. Resolute 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The essay, because it is an essay, is fine, but the template is not. Even if one accepts it at face value, I don't see that it has much application: certainly other tags combined with commentary on the talk page would be just as effective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, inappropriate in every way. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the above comments. —David Levy 07:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This template (and its appended essay) is the work of a single editor. Inserting it into any article is expressing a stritcly personal opinion about the lead of the article in the article itself. We are supposed to use the article talk pages for expressing such opinions. When the template is deleted, I think the essay WP:Nonce introductions becomes useless, so it can be deleted as well, or at best moved to its creator's name space. DVdm (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per SV. --John (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per SV. Essay too. → ROUX   ₪  18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - 1> essay supporting the template is work of only the original author 2> term is a neologism 3>usage of template has been nothing more than insertion of personal opinion (Stevertigo does not like this) in article space -- and without community agreement to essay, CANNOT be any more than that--JimWae (talk) 19:08, 26 September 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:Multiple Norm Smith Medal Winners

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple Norm Smith Medal Winners

No need for a navbox with only two members in it - the listing of all Norm Smith Medal winners isn't that big. The-Pope (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - yeah I think merging to the mother template is fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nonnotable distinction. I think a merge is unnecessary too. --Bsherr (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I mainly suggested merge in case anyone was keen to recreate it later (as editors are always keen on treading new ground), and a redirect for "Dual Norm Smith Medal Winners" while we're at it to cover all bases. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you just mean redirecting, rather than merging? --Bsherr (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – completely unneccessary template; the current template is fine and easy to navigate as it is. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 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.