March 8

edit
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 page.

The result of the debate was delete John Reaves (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Marist High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And, yes, there is a need to become disagreeable when someone tries to delete a template for no reason (I knew where those templates were, I'm not an idiot, but evrik (talk) did not cite his reasons.) -23PatPeter* 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example:
| free_label = Fight song composer
| free_text = Composer's Name
| free_label2 = Military
| free_text2 = Military Name
This is only for {{school}}, not {{high school}}, as the latter was recently created. I think {{high school}} should actually be deleted so you're probably better off using {{school}}. If you would like to add universal fields, please discuss them and any other issues at Template talk:Infobox School. –Pomte 05:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we should only use one universal template for schools, that is why I made this template because there are 10 other templates for school, the only problem is I do not think that school has a picture option, along with other things, but that would definitely be the template. -23PatPeter* 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that all transclusions of this template have now been converted to use other templates, and the template itself is orphaned. I'd suggest that this nomination can safely be closed as a delete now. (And yes, that's what the holding cell is for; to hold templates that people want to delete but can't until they're orphaned.) --ais523 12:55, 19 March 2007 (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.
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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by AuburnPilot per author request. —dgiestc 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Kim_Possible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this box in template space but I have moved it to User space. No links. — Randall Bart 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oligarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pure POV, no hard criteria for inclusion. A bunch of rich influential Russians and ex-Russians in wildly different circumstances. And, of course, "Oligarch" is a loaded term fraught with implications. Delete. --- NYC JD (make a motion) 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree dude. Though I understand where you are coming from. But I think its not just about knowing a bunch of rich russians. This is very unique example of how a certain group of people have exploited the national strategic industry amid social and political changes.
I have created this template not to complement or dennounce a group of rich men. I have created this so when someone is reading about one economic exploiters, he or she can see other examples of this at the bottom of the page. In my view, this certain group of poeple should be linked to one another because of their remarkebly similar rise to power - acquiring vast strategic assests through political exploitation. Many thanks -- Ash sul 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have reasons or making the template, but how do you decide who belongs on the template and who is simply rich? —dgiestc 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. If we consider rich and (at some point) politically powerful people oligarchs, some of the people mentioned there don't deserve inclusion (as they have never enjoyed considerable political influence in the former Soviet Union - e.g. Gaydamak and Makhmudov have no proven political weight in Russia, while Chubais, being politically influential, has his wealth estimations based on rumors), while some clearly relevant people which are not included do. But this would be a very debatable matter inappropriate for a template. I think that something like categorization of the people as both Category:Russian billionaires and Category:Russian politicians should be prerequisite for inclusion. It is also poorly structured and the people are not directly related to each other, so we hardly need a template here at all. A category would be more than enough, and its coverage would be much more easy to correct in one step, while with a template we need two steps at least (modifying articles + modifying the template). Colchicum 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia word "oligarch" have definitely negative connotations. MaxSem 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't consider it a glowing compliment, but it does imply wealth and power, which are usually seen as good. —dgiestc 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's about same criteria as listing people on Business oligarch. Political/state power combined with business ownership. There are numerous articles with oligarchs ratings. It can be possible to add limit for inclusion in template description "List top 20 xUSSR oligarchs by their all-time high net worth". Those people are well-known as oligarchs. In case if community will decide to delete navigation box - it's a must to replace it with list or category. --TAG 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Unnecessary, POV, & original research, as seen from author's explanations here. `'mikka 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - The list is consisted of individuals historicaly and still regularly refered to as oligarchs in media all over the world, including Russia, United Kingdom and the United States. I don't think its a POV issue, as they are portrayed positively or negatively depending on indiavidual media's political POV. But the term "Oligarch" has always been used to define these individuals. I don't think just any old rich person with similar circumstances (e.g. - political exploitation) would necessarily qualify as an oligarch. But certainly these group of people from the former Soviet Union will always be regarded as "Oligarchs", regardless of their media portrait of "good" or "bad". -- Ash sul 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A template to list people should only be used if there are objective criteria as to who qualifies and who doesn't qualify for the template. If people are reading about one oligarch and want to find out who else is considered an oligarch, they should go to Business oligarch, as opposed to having a template that associates all these people without definitive criteria for inclusion or exclusion. --Metropolitan90 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 1ne 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 page.

The result of the debate was Withdraw per the comment below. Stickeylabel 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Television colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I propose that Television colour should be deleted. The template is designed to increase the difficulty to alter a television articles infobox background colour. It does not serve a purpose that wasn't already being performed. There are no links to the template accessible for wikipedians, and there is no mention of the template on television talk pages. An inaccessible template that also employs complicated and esoteric features of template syntax, thats primary purpose is for a simple function that was easily accessible with the Infobox Television template, does not belong on Wikipedia. Stickeylabel 13:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

All national team Squad TP other than World Cup

edit
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 page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. anthonycfc [talk] 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greece Squad UEFA Euro 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions
Template:Latvia Squad Euro 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Denmark Squad Euro 1992 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions
Template:Scotland Squad 1996 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:France Squad 1984 European Football Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions
Template:France Squad 1992 European Football Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:France Squad 1996 European Football Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:France Squad 2000 European Football Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Champions
Template:France Squad 2004 European Football Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Croatia Squad 1996 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It already discussed before (October 17, November 13, November 17, November 21, November 30, December 4, December 12, Deletion review December 21, February 6) Pre previous TFD, the result is delete all (and some expection, e.g. Champions), but seems this time should re-discuss. Matthew_hk tc 10:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this because like Amarkov I'm having a hard time understanding the nomination, but if I read this correctly the contested CfD is the December 4 one, which ended in a no-consensus against precedent. So !votes in favor of deletion should read "overturn, delete", not "endorse deletion". Also, since Greece won the Euro 2004 the Denmark 1992 precedent should hold and the CfD end in a split decision (keep Greece, delete Latvia). Iow, a tangled mess worse than offside rules. ~ trialsanderrors 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
NikoSilver 20:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It do clutter in Strong nation in football
e.g. Shunsuke Nakamura (1 World Cup + 2 AFC Asian Cup + 2 Confederations Cup)
Paolo Maldini (4 World Cup + 3 UEFA Euro),
Patrick Vieira (3 World Cup + 2 UEFA Euro). Matthew_hk tc 04:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but champions. Better handled by the squad list articles. – Elisson • T • C • 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but champions. The problem with keeping Euro Championships squads was in the precedent it set. While the European competition is only every 4 years and only exceptional players will feature in more than two tournaments, the African equivalent is every two years and much more prone to clutter. Rigobert Song, for example, could have no less than six ACoN templates (1996-2006) to go with his 3 WC templates. Caledonian Place 11:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clarifying why the deletion proposal was in the first place. I understand the reasoning. IMHO, the "template clutter" below the player's data is actually informative in case we're speaking of distinctions, prizes, cups etc. I wouldn't mind having 6 or even 9 templates of championing teams below the article. How about solving part of it by means of {{hidden begin}}? It is used in other templates (e.g. see international organizations et al. in country articles such as Greece, Italy etc). NikoSilver 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with the hidden option implemented, as proposed by NikoSilver. This should solve the clutter problem, and we no longer need to have a discussion about this repeatedly or when the next regional tournament comes around. Chanheigeorge 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the worry about clutter, World Cup only templates seems like a completely arbitrayr cut-off point. Surely no-one could argue that any middling World Cup team is more notable than the greatest achievements in the history of Latvia, Greece, Denmark, etc. The hide option would be a good solution. ArtVandelay13 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney Lakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trivial list of links to mostly nonexistent articles about bodies of water at Walt Disney World Resort. —Whoville 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in participating in TFD actively, but I'll just note this: I created tons of articles on Ohio townships because of redlinks in templates. Nyttend 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 page.

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_8/Template:Linkimage, due to length. ^demon[omg plz] 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]