Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21

Template:Airlines of Liechtenstein

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 Speedy Delete Useless template with no actual content, WP:CSD#T3/WP:IAR Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airlines of Liechtenstein (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation box with no navigation Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as basically no content at all. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (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:Algerian Cup

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 User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Algerian Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with only redlinks. The usual procedure is to create articles first, then navigation second. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A navbox that provides no navigation because it is all redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2010 (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:Altline light green

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 Speedy delete per db-author by author Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Altline light green (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can just delete this for you, if you like, rather than nominating it here. I'm just about the only editor, it's years old, and it's not being used, so there's no reason to keep it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:37, 22 January 2010 (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:Cat09

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 User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cat09 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant to other TOC templates, such as {{CategoryTOC-Numeric}}. --RL0919 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2010 (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:Romani infobox

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 User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use template, should be substituted into the article Romani people and deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted already for licencing reasons. The template has an edit history. You can't copy-paste-move content and then delete the original, this violates GFDL. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Help:Merging. There are ways of keeping the edit history if it concerns you. For example, it could be first moved to a subpage, then blanked with the {{copied}} template placed on the blanked article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By that argument, I suppose that this edit also violated WP licensing since there was no record made of the copy-and-paste move in the edit summary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does make the wikicode of Romani people more readable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute as a single-use template; this is no different from any of the tens of single-article transcluded infoboxes which have been discussed and deleted at TfD. The page history can be preserved either by moving the template (and its page history) to a subpage of Talk:Romani people or by copy-pasting the edit history (times and dates of edits, user names of editors, and edit summaries) to a section of Talk:Romani people, which can then be archived. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. No need for a single-use box to be in template space. The contributor list can be preserved separately to meet licensing requirements. --RL0919 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2010 (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:Michael and Peter Spierig

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 No consensus. Valid arguments all around, neither view seems to have greater support. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael and Peter Spierig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The directors do not have their own articles and there are only three links in the template, one of which is red ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to body of work being too small to need a template for navigation. It would help for the directors to have their own biographical article and to have four or more works (that are blue links). Erik (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save. It's the useful template. It's the only chain for connection of articles of Spierig Brothers's films. The article about the brothers [with the filmography of their own] has not exists. There is now an interwiki :). --Октавиус (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the template has only two items, and we do not know if more items will be forthcoming. Would you consider temporary deletion until they have made more films? In the meantime, the simpler chain that we can create here is a "See also" section at both blue-link film articles linking to the other film. Erik (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12.196.37.227 created the stub "Spierig brothers" via AFC so the "See also" section won't be necessary ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 05:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there are not enough working links to warrant a navigation box. If more notable films are made, then this template could potentially be recreated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Navigation boxes should be standardized for notable directors with more than one film, even if they aren't particularly useful if only to avoid arbitrary levels for how many films are needed for a box. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not quite there yet in terms of the number of articles needed to make a useful navbox. No objection to recreating in the future if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (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:Keisha Buchanan

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 User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keisha Buchanan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template containing only a few links, doesn't really aid in navigation. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If all the links were relevant, I might say keep. But articles such as those on record labels she recorded with are not sufficiently related to place this template there, and thus this template only serves to navigate a couple of articles, not enough to justify a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (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:Heidi Range

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 User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heidi Range (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template containing only a few links and one red link, doesn't really aid in navigation. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If all the links were relevant, I might say keep. But articles such as those on record labels she recorded with are not sufficiently related to place this template there, and thus this template only serves to navigate a couple of articles, not enough to justify a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (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:Amelle Berrabah

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 User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amelle Berrabah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template containing only a few links, doesn't really aid in navigation. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If all the links were relevant, I might say keep. But articles such as those on record labels she recorded with are not sufficiently related to place this template there, and thus this template only serves to navigate a couple of articles, not enough to justify a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (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:Fußball-Bundesliga (women) 2005-06

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 Speedy delete per G7 and T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fußball-Bundesliga (women) 2005-06 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. We shouldn't connect football teams with navboxes just because they played in the same league for a year. Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I created this template a long time before, but it was more for reasons of ignorance when I was new to the wikipedia. The template should be deleted. OdinFK (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2010 (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:AWMDB link

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 Substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AWMDB link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template directs readers to the Adult Web Movie Database and includes a link to the WP article for that DB. But that article has been deleted. So, why direct readers to a web site which we have deemed non-notable? Dismas|^(talk) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. The external link guidelines do not require a site to be notable in order for us to link there, but generally external links do not require templates. The use of templates for external linking is best reserved for widely used links or special cases (such as official links or links to Wikimedia sister projects). Since the individual links may be OK, they should be substituted prior to the template being deleted, with no prejudice against article editors removing the subst'ed links if they aren't helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2010 (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.