Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6

Template:The London Institute Junior & Middle School

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) 20:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The London Institute Junior & Middle School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template – main article has been deleted. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hardcoded template under WP:CSD#T3. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 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:Colegio London de EGB y Preescolar

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) 20:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colegio London de EGB y Preescolar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template – main article has been deleted. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hardcoded template under WP:CSD#T3. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 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:RooseveltAcademy

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 would be better substituted if it were in use per T2, but since it's not, so T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned template; and in any event list of linked academic subjects failsWP:NOT. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:28, 6 November 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:Unintelligible

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) 17:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned template; there are numerous cleanup templates to choose from in such circumstance, there's also {{db-nonsense}}. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like it's a {{notenglish}} template... perhaps redirect there? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused template with ample alternatives. Looks like it was intended for gibberish articles rather than foreign language articles, so I don't think the suggested redirect would be appropriate. PC78 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Since it's unused a redirect doesn't make much sense. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 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:Largest Income Earner Municipalities of the Philippines

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 due to lack of a reliable source. I will move it to the author's userspace in the event that a reliable source can be identified. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest Income Earner Municipalities of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unreferenced template, the template points out the Commission of Audit 2007 as its main source of reference (where it points to) but the link itself does not speak of what the template os all about. Dubious claims about income revenues, it always changes per year.JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 15:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are added information on the template. The new "source", Bureau of Local Government Finance does not speak about the subject on the template. Furthermore, another source is from SkyScraperCity.com, which, according to SPS is not a reliable source: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:02, 6 November 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:Prophets of Islam (Turkey)

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) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prophets of Islam (Turkey) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Other than the spelling of names this is a duplication of {{Prophets in the Qur'an}}. I don`t see any need for different templates with the same names that are country specific. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – because it's encyclopedic – information that has a need to be on Wikipedia, related to Turkey, one of the largest Muslim majority countries in the world. There won’t be many other country specific ones because there aren’t that many countries that have completely different Prophet names. Possibly if it came to it, a Prophets of Islam in other cultures template, would suffice the subject. John Cengiz talk 08:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a navigational template. Unlike content in articles, we shouldn't have different names in navigational templates: they're meant to allow readers to go easily from one to another. Having multiple navigational templates that do the same thing is very confusing. Why don't you put this text into mainspace? I agree that it can be encyclopedic; the problem with this specific page is that it doesn't belong in the template namespace, and simply moving the page to a different namespace wouldn't really work well. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and the above comment. Islam is not a name for nation. Its a name of a religion. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 01:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template can be used in Turkish Vikipedi but it's not needed in English Wikipedia. Kavas (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kavas, there's no need for this on English Wikipedia. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:31, 13 November 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:Mega Model

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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mega Model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template with only one active link, parent article appears to not exist? Plastikspork (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G8 (dependent on a deleted article). PC78 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but not speedily. G8 does not appear to apply to this kind of template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 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:Infobox kendo biography

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) 08:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox kendo biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article. {{Infobox martial artist}} would do instead. WOSlinker (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant to a more generic template. PC78 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 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.