October 15

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 section.

The result of the debate was Archived to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Pokémon species Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokémon species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used by one article, currently at AFD. Filled with in-universe information. Has been replaced by largely out-of-univese {{Infobox VG character}} in articles that would use it. See Pikachu and Jigglypuff for examples. Pagrashtak 20:18, 15 October 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Classic Albums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm having a hard time determining what constitutes a "classic album" or a "classic album series". The albums I checked did not self identify themselves as part of a classic album series or as a classic album. The list just appears to be one persons opinion of popular rock albums. Apteva (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing when I first saw it, but it turns out the albums listed are those featured on the TV series Classic Albums, which the template's title links to. Whether or not that warrants a navbox I don't know. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I missed that. So should there be a navblock for all of the bands that appear on American Bandstand, or that were played on KSAN, or for sale at Tower Records? Putting the navblock at the bottom of each of the albums seems to give undue weight to them, and in my opinion serves no purpose. Apteva (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2008 (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.
Template:LithuaniaAirplayChartNav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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 by Golbez, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Useless template, all three pages that are linked are up for deletion, as is the chart itself. Note that the chart is "hosted" on blogas.it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:09, 15 October 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Droid infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; redundant with another template: Template:SW Droid. --EEMIV (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification - CAF Second Group Round (Seeding) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not suitable. The seeding tables are not usually be put at a template. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:37, 15 October 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Power Rangers monsters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since I nominated the articles listed in this template for deletion, it is suitable that I nominate this template for deletion as well. If you would like to see the deletion nomination for the articles, click here. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 08:37, 15 October 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:External links cleaned (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Permanent cleanup template. Past consensus has been extremely clear that we do not want cleanup tags staying on articles forever. --- RockMFR 03:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The docs for this template explicitly say that it should only be used if there is certain to be an ongoing problem with inappropriate external links. However, this is an ongoing problem with the entire Wikipedia, so maybe it's not necessary on an article-by-article basis.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:40, 22 October 2008 (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.

Class II and III railroad templates

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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US class II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:US class III (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The reasons can be read at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 15#Class II and III railroad categories, where I am nominating related categories for deletion. NE2 03:04, 15 October 2008 (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.