Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 15

< September 14	September 16 >

September 15[edit]

Template:Recently given birth[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need such specific message for an event that only rarely is very newsworthy ? I think not. . --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't. Delete. PC78 23:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Delete Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, funny template, but I agree with TheDJ. Carlosguitar 14:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps a parm could be added to another template to indicate a person has given birth instead of an entire template. But, I agree, this template by itself is not very useful. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though WP:ILIKEIT. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:59, 22 September 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:Pc game[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to believe it is so hard to change or remove a category that we need a cleanup tag to request it be done. Circeus 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless template. Sebi _[talk] 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be unnecessary. Carlosguitar 14:17, 16 September 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:Cleanupreason[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Malcolm (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork of {{cleanup-reason}}. Can't be just redirected because of differences in coding. Circeus 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Note for closing admin: Switching may require a bot for ease. Please redirect once switching is complete to avoid pointless recreation.[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlosguitar 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty much all of the pages using it were added by some moronic editor who apparantly didn't know about {{cleanup-reason}} or failed to notice the dash when looking at potential cleanup templates. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:38, 16 September 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:CleanupConform[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not surewhat's the point here, but it's not used. Circeus 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be replaceable by {{contradict}}. Carlosguitar 14:08, 16 September 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:Australian Mobile Phone Companies[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:Australian mobile phone companies. — Wongm 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and obsolete. Carlosguitar 06:33, 15 September 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:Globalize/USA/Section[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is the same as {{Globalize/USA}} except it specifies "section" instead of "article or section". Unnecessary duplication. — Harryboyles 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete replaceable by {{Globalize/USA}}. Carlosguitar 06:36, 15 September 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:re-work[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't do anything in the two places it appears that {{confusing}}, {{clarifyme}} or {{cleanup}} can't do. Circeus 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, confusing, clarifyme and cleanup all do the job just fine. Sebi _[talk] 05:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, these templates does the job. Carlosguitar 06:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:05, 16 September 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.

Anime and manga character infoboxes (Round 4)[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the above templates have been orphaned on or before September 8, 2007 as part of an overall cleanup and merger campaign of over 60 character infoboxes towards a general anime and manga character infobox, Template:Infobox animanga character. Since there have been no significant complaints since these templates were replaced, they are now ready for deletion. This is the next to last group folks. --Farix (Talk) 01:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all For simplicity.--十八 02:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but redirect or userfy Template:Infobox Digimon character, simply because I'm interested in keeping its history (even though it's very simple and basic). --Ned Scott 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per ISO WIKIPEDIA 2007. Carlosguitar 06:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Carlosguitar Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: thanks for all the work cleaning these up! CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:00, 22 September 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:Tongyang Orion Group[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A red link farm with only a handfull of blue links. These three articles are already sufficiently interlinked, so the template serves no real purpose. PC78 00:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, template servers no purpose. Sebi _[talk] 05:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete red link farm and not helpful. Carlosguitar 06:52, 15 September 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:MBCK[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template has minimal links, and most of them are external links. Has little use as a navigational aid. — PC78 00:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, navigation boxes are supposed to help readers navigate through related articles in Wikipedia, not through other external links. Sebi _[talk] 05:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spebi, I never saw a template using external links. Carlosguitar 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spebi Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:05, 16 September 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.