Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 4

March 4

Template:Philippine territorial disputes

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very, very, redundant. The content is very limited(only 3 articles) that is also repeated in 4 other templates ((Template:Present & Past Philippine territorial disputes, Template:Philippines, Template:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia, and Template:Territorial disputes in East, South, and Southeast Asia) including one that rivals and is an improvement of it. ----23prootie (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very, very speedy close. Nominator's whims have now been addressed to. --Howard the Duck 10:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:05, 4 March 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:Present & Past Philippine territorial disputes

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template to Template:Philippine territorial disputes. The author of the new template has issues with the older one and his "suggestions" had been repeatedly "shot down" and is/was reverted. The author also tried to CSD the old one twice but I reverted it each time; the last time was earlier and I recommend to use the TFD route. --Howard the Duck 09:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close -Template:Present & Past Philippine territorial disputes is a more expansive template than Template:Philippine territorial disputes. and all content of Template:Philippine territorial disputes is already present in 3 other templates (Template:Philippines, Template:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia, and Template:Territorial disputes in East, South, and Southeast Asia). Anyway this nominator also has an issue with the template.---23prootie (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because you added it.

Also, Template:Territorial disputes in East, South, and Southeast Asia also includes information from either template so the new one has to go, too. --Howard the Duck 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See discussion at Template talk:Philippine territorial disputes. --Howard the Duck 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still better. Anyway the other template is very limuited and would never grow beyond the three.23prootie (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd let the others decide on this one. --Howard the Duck 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very, very speedy delete. The author of the new template's whims have now been addressed to and the new template is now 100% redundant. Dunno on other templates though, they might need some cleanups. --Howard the Duck 10:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the deletion of this template. Why? Because it makes articles filled with too much templates. Do you really believe that users want to see this template? Templates are ok as long as they only pertain to MAJOR listings, categories, etc. Template:Present & Past Philippine territorial disputes, aside from being redundant with Template:Philippine territorial disputes, is essentially worthless. What are the past territorial disputes of the Philippines? In your template, Palmas Island is the only entry in the Former row. Actually, many Filipino officials, up to this day, insists Philippine sovereignty over the island despite the international arbitration trial which favored Netherlands. So, in actuality, Palmas Island dispute is still a present dispute though it's dormant. And don't even think of changing former to dormant just to satisfy this FACT. An article, Territories claimed by the Philippines, which I created years ago and in which you have placed your template, is already discussing this issue. Why not just include that article in See Also sections of all pages where you want to place your templates? Just a suggestion. Also, I'm planning on a major editing of that article. When I started that article, I'm kinda just do it for pastime. There's no references and sections are not organized very well. Up to this day it is still lacking many aspects which it should discuss. I encourage you to help me doing it. You'll earn more points (honorary points) by making those kind of edits than creating templates. --Estarapapax ^Talk 10:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 23:05, 4 March 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:BionicCommando

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:Bionic Commando. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 4 March 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:Diplomatic missions of Europe

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contains territories which would never run diplomatic missions. Excessive number of footnotes are needed to explain why certain countries/territories are included. Unattractive, unnecessary and unencylopedic. — Kransky (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't find the deletion reasons valid. I find the template useful. --Avala (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's encylopedic and very useful for its subject matter. Sounds like I don't like it. EJF (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even if you delete this you can simply type in {{Europe topic|Diplomatic missions of}}, and produce the same thing. Adding the "countries only=yes" will remove the depedencies and territories. Therefore deletion is irrelevent. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 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:Cc-sampling

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unfree license template. Even Creative Commons said not to use this license for new works. — User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and unneeded. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavia. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{noncommercial}}, which will make any attempts to use it grounds for speedy deletion. ViperSnake151 20:02, 5 March 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.