Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23

Template:Recent book

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was created almost immediately after the deletion of {{Current fiction}}. As the closing admin stated in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_15#Template:Current_fiction, "Articles about new things need help. This is not a new concept. A box with one of those bright stripes doesn't need to tell us that." An argument was made in the deletion debate that {{Current fiction}} was like {{Recent death}}, but it was not a compelling argument as information does not change rapidly for fictional works as they're static and don't change rapidly. Chaz ^Beckett 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to delete simply because it differs in form dramatically from {{Current game}} and seems to have a different purpose. It doesn't really match anything in our current events templates, and really, all Wikipedia articles are subject to change. Once a book is released, the information tends to harden, they've usually already been reviewed and there isn't so much information flying about. Hiding T 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this template and I don't see how the deletion of {{current fiction}} applies here. Not all books are fiction. And corpses don't change rapidly either, speaking of the {{recent death}} template. This template is perfectly in line with other temporal templates. This template is meant to be a counterpart to {{future book}}. Once a book has been released, {{future book}} can be removed from an article and replaced with {{recent book}}. I would say that articles about recently released books change much more rapidly after the book has been released, rather than before the book has been released. --Pixelface (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same rationale as {{Recent film}}. AniMate 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is exactly the kind of temporal template that is needed. Take, for example, the release of Harry Potter 7. After the book was released, the article was undergoing large additions and changes for quite a few days. This would be good for such situations. This is completely different than Template:Current fiction, which wasn't good at doing anything. --- RockMFR 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The HP issue was a rarity and could easily be dealt with through the use of the already existing {{underconstruction}} template. Collectonian (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true... --- RockMFR 05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wholly unnecessary and inappropriate attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction template (and probably to get around the spoiler issue, yet again). There is absolutely no reason at all to tag a book as "recently" released, and "recent" is far too arbitrary (whose date do we go by, the "official release date," the date the first store actually gives out a copy, what about the many books with out set release dates just release months? Collectonian (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an attempt to "get around the spoiler issue." And it's not an attempt to "get around" the deletion of the current fiction template. The {{current fiction}} template was proposed on WT:SPOILER but this template has nothing to do with spoilers or spoiler warnings. Do you know when to remove the {{future book}} tag? That's when you add the {{recent book}} tag. --Pixelface (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Effectively this is a recreation, or at least a circumvention of deletion, or a previously deleted template. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all books are fiction. This is a counterpart to {{future book}}. --Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a maintenance burden. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more so than {{recent death}}. --Pixelface (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to be honest here. The spoiler debate is over. Spoiler alerts are not welcome on Wikipedia. This template is attempt to bring back {{current fiction}}, which was an attempt to replace {{spoiler}}. --Phirazo 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template has nothing to do with spoiler alerts whatsoever. And not all books are fiction. --Pixelface (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. feydey (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Collectonian, and Phirazo. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this template have to do with the {{current fiction}} template? --Pixelface (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The message is virtually the same. They both declare something to be new. Readers can figure out that a book is new from the lead. If an article is need of clean-up, there are plenty of clean-up templates with a more specific message than "this is new". The example you cite, {{recent death}} is more like {{current}}, that is to say, it is news, and the article may be unstable while the current event occurs. Information about recently released books doesn't change the way news of future books or news about recent deaths do, so I see little point to this template other than "OMG SPOILERS". If there is a problem with many editors editing an article on a recent book in a short period of time, then {{current}} can be used. --Phirazo 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The message is virtually the same? How so? They both declare something to be new? That's not why {{current fiction}} was deleted. And the {{current product}} template has existed since September. Temporal templates are not necessarily for cleanup. A death is not a current event. It happens once, and then it's over. Articles about recently released books do change alot after the book is released. Again, this template has nothing to do with spoilers. Most book releases are not considered "events", so I don't see how the {{current}} tag would apply. --Pixelface (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to determine its purpose since its message keeps changing (three distinct versions in the past day). If the message is simply declaring it's a recent book (as it does at this moment), then I see no purpose for it; I can look at its publishing history to see how recent it is (if the article lacks that information, then add it instead of this tag). Template tags like this must have a useful purpose, and that purpose is usually clear from the message it creates on the page. For some reason, this template's message (as well as those of its sisters) is deemed secondary or fungible or unnecessary by its creator. Therefore, I cannot discern its intent and must vote to Delete.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of a useful reason to tag an article with this template. The book is finished, so no changes will take place (normally!). Critical reaction will be ongoing for eternity. The tag is not requesting assistance from editors, nor is it alerting readers to potential problems. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I think this template is useful, but should say more than it does, mentioning more specific problems with the article as the old 'currentfiction' template did. I don't think this was intended as a spoiler template, but some people seem to think it is one, so if kept it should be reworded to clarify its actual purpose: alerting readers that an article may not be up to our highest standards of quality, due to inevitable problems with recentism. That's a real issue, and this is a helpful template. Terraxos (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per other editors' rationales and the fact that its useless.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all arguments at the {{Current fiction}} TfD. This is virtually a G4 speedy candidate, and just more disruption from User:Pixelface, who continues to demonstrate that he has no interest in creating an encyclopedia and endless interest in "beating the dust which has blown over the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay", to quote a recent AN/I thread. --Stormie (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However murky Pixelface's history might be (and I know nothing of it, so I'll take your word for it), that's no reason not to AGF here. Happy‑melon 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this template a recreation of previously deleted material? Please explain how. Otherwise, your comments about beating a dead horse are totally inappropriate, David. --Pixelface (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having nothing to do with the spoiler or currentfiction arguments, but simply because it is completely useless and provides no added value to either readers or editors of the encyclopedia. Maintenance tags are not intended to enlighten readers - and it does not do that, since the release date should be presented within the article. They are intended for editors, to provide useful information and/or areas to concentrate improvement efforts. This template does nothing in that regard. Happy‑melon 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other users rationals, especially per Hiding. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated here, recent film and current fiction. Simply stating that the book is recent is not helpful, but requesting specific improvements is. There are already cleanup templates that offer better advice and link to appropriate guidelines. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well what improvements do you think aricles on recently released books need? --Pixelface (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would depend on what improvements the article needed. Possibly {{plot}} or {{refimprove}}, but it really depends on what action is needed to improve the article. Tagging the article just to say that it is recently released doesn't really do anything except repeat what is presumably in the lead paragraph (release date). ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 30 December 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.

Template:Recent film

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like {{Recent book}}, this template was created almost immediately after the deletion of {{Current fiction}}. Chaz ^Beckett 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to delete simply because it differs in form dramatically from {{Current game}} and seems to have a different purpose. It doesn't really match anything in our current events templates, and really, all Wikipedia articles are subject to change. Once a film is released, the information tends to harden, they've usually already been reviewed and there isn't so much information flying about. Hiding T 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all films are fiction so I don't see how the deletion of {{current fiction}} applies here. This template is a counterpart to {{future film}}. Once a film has been released, {{future film}} can be removed from an article and replaced with {{recent film}}. I would say that articles about recently released films change much more rapidly after the film has been released, rather than before the film has been released. --Pixelface (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems unnecessary and arbitrary. When does a film stop being recent? A day? A week? Are we then going to then have template {{Not so recent film}}? {{Older film}}? {{Classic film}}? AniMate 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When does a death stop being recent? A day? A week? Do we have {{not so recent death}}? The template can be removed from an article after a certain time period has passed. That time period can be determined by discussion and consensus on Template talk:Recent film. --Pixelface (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wholly unnecessary and inappropriate attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction template (and probably to get around the spoiler issue, yet again). Future covers films not yet released, after that, they do not need to be tagged as "recently" released, and "recent" is far too abitrary. Collectonian (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this template an attempt to get around the spoiler issue? You say "recent" is far too arbitrary. Do you know when to remove the {{future film}} tag? Then you know when to apply this tag. --Pixelface (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am leaning toward endorsing deletion of this template, but I'd like to pose a question. I've kept an eye on quite a few articles of recent films in the past year, and I've rarely noticed hefty editing on the large majority of them. They've usually been gnomish edits, either copy-editing or fine-tuning details to the Plot section. The film articles pale in absolute comparison to articles covering recent events or recent deaths, so I'm asking, how does this template serve to inform the reader in any way? A thought of mine is to wiki-link to WP:MOSFILM and encourage readers to get involved, but there is still an issue of when a film is recent. For example, The Killing of John Lennon is no longer a "future film", but it does not have a large presence. If it gets a wide release in the United States, would the template really apply there? From where we're standing, we can perceive points in the timeline where a film gets more awareness (such as a foreign film being introduced in an English-language territory, controversies, awards, or DVD releases), but from what I've seen, the traffic is rarely quantifiable based on the meager edits to articles on films. The objective threshold that's been used is the first non-festival release, so my issue is whether the template would really help even if it only exists in the first x weeks of a film's release, where it may find higher traffic afterward for a reason like the ones I previously listed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Effectively this is a recreation, or at least a circumvention of deletion, or a previously deleted template. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which template? --Pixelface (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a maintenance burden. Pavel Vozenilek (talk)

Is {{recent death}} a maintenance burden? You don't have to use this template if you don't want to. --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to be honest here. The spoiler debate is over. Spoiler alerts are not welcome on Wikipedia. This template is attempt to bring back {{current fiction}}, which was an attempt to replace {{spoiler}}. --Phirazo 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this template a spoiler alert? --Pixelface (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this template is deleted, I ask that Category:Recent films (which this template puts articles into) not be deleted along with it — although I suppose that's a matter for CFD. --Pixelface (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phirazo already said what I was going to say. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has nothing to do with spoiler alerts. --Pixelface (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is it about? That a film is new? Readers can figure that out from the lead. That an article is in need of clean-up? There are plenty of clean-up templates with a more specific message than "this is new". The example you cite, {{recent death}} is more like {{current}}, that is to say, it is news, and the article may be unstable while the current event occurs. Information about recently released films doesn't change the way news of future films or news about recent deaths do, so I see little point to this template other than "OMG SPOILERS". If there is a problem with many editors editing an article on a recent film in a short period of time, then {{current}} can be used. --Phirazo 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readers can figure out that Ike Turner died from the lead too. And they can also figure out that Cloverfield hasn't been released yet. Articles about recently released films do change quite a bit — and many of those articles do need attention. The template has nothing to do with spoilers or spoiler warnings. The template has never been about "OMG SPOILERS" and I have no idea why you would think that. Films are not current events, so no, {{current}} cannot be used. A film premiere may be a sort of "event", but the information about the premiere is often not what changes, the entire article changes, usually significantly. This is a temporal template. Most temporal templates lack any clean-up messages and just indicate that an article may change rapidly. I would say that articles about recently released films change much more after the film's release than before the film's release. I see no reason why the {{future film}} template should exist, but not the {{recent film}} template. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my concerns about the lack of ease in implementing such a template consistently, reflected in my comment a few bullet points above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to determine its purpose since its message keeps changing (three distinct versions in the past day). If the message is simply declaring it's a recent film (as it does at this moment), then I see no purpose for it; I can look at its release dates relevant to my location to see just how recent it is (if the article lacks that information, then add it instead of adding this tag). Template tags like this must have a useful purpose, and that purpose should be clear from the message it creates on the page. For some reason, this template's message (as well as those of its sisters) is deemed secondary or fungible or unnecessary by its creator. Therefore, I cannot discern its intent and must vote to Delete.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of a useful reason to tag an article with this template. The film is finished, so no changes will take place. Critical reaction will be ongoing for eternity. The tag is not requesting assistance from editors, nor is it alerting readers to potential problems. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film may be the finished but the article isn't. Articles about recently released films often change very quickly and some need updating and improvement. The tag did encourage people to expand the article, but some editors didn't like that wording so I changed it. This template puts articles into a category. An editor may work on one article and then see other articles in the category and work on those too. You said yourself that critical reaction will be ongoing. Film articles continue to change after the film has been released for a while, but I think the most changes come in the first few weeks after the film's release. --Pixelface (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I think this template is useful, but should say more than it does, mentioning more specific problems with the article as the old 'currentfiction' template did. I don't think this was intended as a spoiler template, but some people seem to think it is one, so if kept it should be reworded to clarify its actual purpose: alerting readers that an article may not be up to our highest standards of quality, due to inevitable problems with recentism. That's a real issue, and this is a helpful template. Terraxos (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above reasonings.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning as above comment on {{Recent book}}, virtually a G4 speedy candidate after the {{Current fiction}} TfD. --Stormie (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a recreation of deleted material and Jerry certainly didn't think so either. How is this a recreation of {{current fiction}}? All films are fictional now? Is there some wording on this template that remiinds you of {{current fiction}}? --Pixelface (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale for {{Recent book}} - provides no useful information to editors, maintenance tags are not intended for readers. Happy‑melon 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a more specific version of the recently deleted current fiction template and should be deleted for the same reasons. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Film" is more specific than "fiction"? How so? --Pixelface (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's specifying the type of fiction. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 30 December 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.

Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton

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 keep and clean up. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is consists of content which is mostly unrelated to Hillary Clinton. Even if it is not deleted, I still think that much of its content should be removed (like links to associations which she is a member of). I would also suggest people look through Wikipedia for similar templates because I have not seen any others quite like this. Comments appreciated. EvanS • talk |sign here 18:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. EvanS • talk |sign here 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many of the 2008 presidential candidates have them, e.g. Template:Barack Obama, Template:John Edwards, Template:Mitt Romney, Template:Rudy Giuliani, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comment: Yes, but they only use content which is relevant to the person; I suggest you compare Hillary Clinton's template to one of those. Also note that Romney and Giuliani's templates are being considered for deletion. EvanS • talk |sign here 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  By "considered for deletion", I presume you mean informally, because I find no formal deletion process anywhere? If anything, Edwards' template might be more deletable than any of the others, with only 4 bluelinks and 3 redlinks. I trust you will demonstrate your stated intent consistently across all templates. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I count only half a dozen articles that are directly about or involve her. The template should be cut down to these. –Pomte 04:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up. per comments above. Benjiboi 14:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon further thought, and looking at Category:Politician navigational templates, I'd restrict such templates to actual heads of state (in the U.S., presidents), and not use them for senators, governors, members of parliament, etc., or for candidates to higher office. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply (to Wasted Time R) If you believe in restricting personal templates to actual heads of state like presidents, and not using templates for candidates for national offices or senators and governors, please also say so here if you don't mind. I have nominated the template of Ron Paul (who is a U.S. Congressman) for deletion. EvanS • talk |sign here 23:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful as a navigation template, and serves a similar purpose to Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Most of the articles included are particularly related to her, so it makes sense to link them together based on that. Terraxos (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As stated at the Ron Paul template deletion debate, (1) it is proper for templates to have indirect content as well as direct content. (2) If there is debate about what indirect content to include, that is not a deletion argument, but a fix-it argument. (3) If there is some reason to limit politician templates to heads of state, that is not a TFD argument, but should be discussed at the talk at Category:Politician navigational templates instead of, what, four separate remote TFD debates? Then we can delete all at once if WP:OTHERSTUFF consistency should be validated by consensus. (4) Most important, how could I find all the WP content on Clinton or Paul or the others without a template?!? Should I rely on the hierarchical maze? The template easily and swiftly uncovers several articles for additional information which I would not find easily or at all by an intense scan of the overlong article. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply I responded to this at the Ron Paul template deletion debate. And could you please show me the "four separate remote TFD debates"? EvanS • talk |sign here 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Paul and Clinton are two; I said "what?" because you said "Romney and Giuliani's templates are being considered for deletion". Whatever did you mean? And could you please show me where you responded to (4)? John J. Bulten (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Mhking (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited WP:PERNOM on enough threads today. John J. Bulten (talk) 01:22, 29 December 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.

Template:2007-08 New Jersey Nets season game log

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BD2412 T 02:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete notability concerns, single-use at best, subst if necessary. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:2007-08 NBA Central standings

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently an updated version is being used now. jj137 ^♠ 17:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:2007-08 Charlotte Bobcats season game log

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in any article. Userfy if need be.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added it to 2007-08 Charlotte Bobcats season, where it should have been. jj137 ^♠ 17:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete Single use template. Only use will ever be the article it is currently in. Reso lute 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per Resolute. There is only one article it could ever be used in, and it should, in effect, be that article. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, single-use at best, subst if necessary. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:2006 San Francisco Giants season game log

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I created this several months ago, but apparently forgot about it. We can always recreate it if we need to. jj137 ^♠ 17:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns, single-use at best, subst if necessary. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Home Run Derby templates

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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used in any article. Userfy if need be. -- ALLSTARecho 09:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and unsubstitute. These templates were first proposed for deletion in July. The reason for no consensus was that the same tables were used across two articles. They still are, it's just that someone had substituted them. It's certainly possible that the format for these tables will change, considering the two types of formats in Home Run Derby. It's easier to edit one template than it is to know to make the same changes to two articles. The templates also make sure there are no discrepancies across articles. This time, I'll make sure they get unsubstituted. Note: I've merged the 7 nominations here to avoid copy and pasting across discussions as the same result should apply to all of them; for the same reason the templates should stay. –Pomte 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Two articles are not very difficult to change. It is basically still a single use template. Reso lute 04:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not very difficult" still allows it to be more difficult to some degree, and every bit helps if someone's trying to maintain and check for consistency across 8+ articles. What does basically single use mean? They're clearly not single use. –Pomte 11:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a vote but if the articles are removed, the cat needs to be deleted as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just more wasted space and server usage so editors can be obscenely lazy.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:08, 28 December 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.

Template:2006 Bears Draft

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged these 2 sections to avoid copy and pasting across discussions as the same result should apply to both of them. –Pomte 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor li'l orphans. Delete both. BD2412 T 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:2006-2007 National Division Three South

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being used on any article. Userfy if need be.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns, subst if necessary. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:2003 FIFA Womens world Cup Venues

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 02:18, 30 December 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.

Template:2000s NBA Eastern Conference Final broadcasters

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns, minimal utility. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:1998 FIFA World Cup Finalists

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 no consensus. This goes against many guidelines for the template namespace - but if editors agree it could be useful it shouldn't be deleted - at this time. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I can link stuff to it? Because this template exists for 2002 + 2006 World Cups, so why not 98 as well? WilliamF1 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of a series, as the creator argues. Also, it's now transcluded on one page, France national football team, and should be added to others as well. Terraxos (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - series, as argued. More usage would strengthen my vote. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. – Pee Jay 02:17, 30 December 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.

Template:1996 Florida Gators roster

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete it Keep it It does not matter if it links to nothing. It is only for that specific article because it displays the players on the national championship winning team. It is part of the wiki College Football project. By the way, it links to 1996 Florida Gators football team Go waste your time elsewhere. 350z33 16:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete single use template, useful only in the article mentioned above. Does not require a separate template. Reso lute 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused template. I see that 350z33 has not noticed that the template was substituted already on August 17 with this diff. Template no longer necessary. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and get 350z33 something to calm himself down. No need to make personal attacks thank you.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns, single-use at best, subst if necessary. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:Wikipedia Wikipedians

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 by administrator Xaosflux as a test page. Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was apparently created solely to serve as an example for how football templates should be laid out. Obviously, it is not in use in any actual articles. A better practice would be to pick a template for an existing team to perfect and point to as a model (this appears to have been done too, rendering this template obsolete). — BD2412 T 09:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Subst and speedy delete as a test page (and tagged as such). JPG-GR (talk) 18:36, 23 December 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.

Template:1996 Florida Gators depth chart

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make an article of it and delete, that thing is a monster! BD2412 T 09:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete it KEEP IT It clearly shows the national championship players at their respective positions. It's part of the wiki College Football Project. As a matter of fact, it does link to something. 1996 Florida Gators football team Go waste your time trying to delete something else. 350z33 15:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are better ways to present this information. Single use template, and even then only of marginal usefulness. Subst into 1996 Florida Gators football team if desired. Reso lute 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this info was already substituted into the 1996 Florida Gators football team article on August 17th. Also, please be WP:CIVIL in your commentary, 350z33. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns, single-use at best, subst if necessary. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:1994 Atlantic Division Standings

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 Maxim_(talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Static info that will never change. While there are about seven articles that would use this infobox, better to simply add them to the articles directly. Reso lute 17:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. --Pparazorback (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. Flibirigit (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:1990s NBA Western Conference Final broadcasters

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 deletion of both. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific to go into individual articles. Make an article of it and delete the template. BD2412 T 09:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per BD2412. This is an article in template form, not a template. JPG-GR (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged these 2 sections to avoid copy and pasting across discussions as the same result should apply to both of them. –Pomte 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BD2412. Happy‑melon 22:07, 28 December 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.

Template:1969MLBPlayoffs

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and similarly named templates don't exist (i.e. not part of a series). JPG-GR (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually there are a whole slew of templates with similar names. See Category:Major League Baseball playoffs navigational boxes. The other templates are used somewhere though. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:19, 27 December 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.

Template:Offensive pictures

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 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is hopelessly POV. What is obscene to me may not be to you. WP is NOT Censored. — Gillyweed (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. This is a disclaimer for use in articles, hence... — Gavia immer (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both nom and Gavia immer. JPG-GR (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Garion96 (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointless as a blunt pencil. ><RichardΩ6 12 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --Stormie (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Mhking (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... ooh let's see how many policies we can throw at this one!! WP:NOT#CENSORED, WP:NPOV, WP:V all spring to mind! Happy‑melon 21:58, 28 December 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.

Template:Tl1

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filing this nomination on behalf of User:H3xx, who added the TfD template but did not list it here. [1] — WODUP 07:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the more versatile {{th}}. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one's different from the ordinal numbers below. It has some unnecessary User talk links, unclear acronyms, and shows all parameters regardless of their existence, which makes it an outdated version of {{tls}} variants that should be deleted or at least mark deprecated. –Pomte 11:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outdated & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 07:43, 25 December 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.

Ordinal numbers

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 --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filing this nomination on behalf of User:H3xx, who added the TfD template but did not list it here. [2] Also, I agree that this template should be deleted with {{th}} as a better alternative. — WODUP 07:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the more versatile {{th}}. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant/unused. I have merged the 5 nominations to ease discussion as the same decision should apply to all of them. –Pomte 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, {{th}} better alternative. SkierRMH (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and all those similar ({{3rd}}, {{10th}} etc, what's the point of an incomplete series?). {{th}} etc provide much more flexibility for adding ordinals to any number, and there is no reason as far as I'm aware for any number specific ones (where do you stop?). matt br 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obsolete. BD2412 T 03:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 22:00, 28 December 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.

Template:Cite press release/doc2

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 Speedy deleted per only editor's request. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to Template:Cite press release/doc.. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WODUP 09:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Db-authored--Speedy it... this was part of a proposal to write a new help page, that the community did not have much interest in pursuing. Apologies for needing a reminder to tidy this (and a couple of others to follow) up. I'll backtrack those too. // FrankB 19:17, 23 December 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.

Template:Roads in Washington, DC suburbs

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is too large and is unnessecary to link all the roads in the area — Dough4872 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:USRD/P precedents. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from precedents, categories effectively cover the use of the template. --Son (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not to mention that its a redlink farm, but that aside, I concur with the above — master son^{T - C} 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, redlinks, & size. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this template should be deleted, what should be done with the somewhat similar Template:Roads_in_Baltimore_area? - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:25, 30 December 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.