Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 6

< September 5	September 7 >

September 6

Template:Cricket history

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. Wizardman 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cricket history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Several elements are redlinks to proposed lists that are unlikely to be created, while two of the existing bluelinks are themselves undeveloped lists of dubious value. The template serves no useful purpose as it applies to articles that (a) are now unsupported or (b) that will never be written. This is because the cricket project has moved away from those sort of multi-season reviews and is developing single season or single series reviews instead. The template is redundant. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why does duplication of a category mean a nvabox should be deleted? The same logic would see {{British Columbia provincial electoral districts 2001-2009}}, {{SaskatchewanElections}}, {{GB-rail-history}} and {{Bigfour}} deleted, to name but a few. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've removed my point about category duplication as it is minor: after all, that is what most navboxes do. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 04:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least more than the above. :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 03:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, only three editors have commented and there currently appears no clear consensus.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template has become redundant and links to articles which do not exist and are unlikely to exist. It can be recreated later if a need arises. Moondyne 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Given that it's alleged this template is now redundant and no longer by the cricket wikiproject used I'm surprised no one has done this already but whatever the case, I have now—Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed or used. Johnlp (talk) 21:19, 16 September 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:NRHPdis

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 Redirect. If anyone feels strongly enough, they're welcome to fix all the incoming links and then I'll delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRHPdis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't understand what's so special about places listed on the National Register of Historic Places that they need their own special disambiguation template. {{Disambig}} is simpler and should work fine for all of the pages that use this template. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{disambig}}. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary since we already have {{disambig}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:22, 9 September 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:Resident Evil character

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Resident Evil characters have been merged into lists and this is no longer used. Pagra shtak 15:24, 6 September 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:Succession box three to one

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. Pagra shtak 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box three to one (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use. All uses have been replaced with standard templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates. Bazj (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unused deprecated template. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although maybe the two uses on user pages should be subst'ed? Ardric47 (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly as "Succession box one to one". There is a better template doing the job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, we are reaching the low numbers in the substitutions (there used to be templates like "six to three"). Soon all templates of this outdated series will be gone. Delete. Waltham, The Duke of 00:31, 13 September 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:TVN

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. Pagra shtak 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TVN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template should be deleted as it is no longer used and has been replaced in articles with another upgraded template: Template:Grupa ITI. HeMan5 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 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.