Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 13

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) 05:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnam squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indonesia Squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand Squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per prior concensus at

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lack of anyone showing up to defend the templates after over two weeks of listing is suggestive, but it would help clinch things if someone could point to a specific discussion at
  WT:FOOTY that supports the consensus mentioned in the nomination. I tried a bit of archive searching but couldn't find anything clearly related to this. --RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I apologize for not providing a link. It's something that has been discussed a number of times at WT:FOOTY, most recently here. I know there were more detailed discussions in the past, but that recent one summarizes the consensus. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The discussion linked above, plus the lack of anyone coming forward to support these templates, is sufficient for me. --RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it looks like this topic has been discussed before in the linked discussion. —Airplaneman— 00:51, 24 March 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was used to create links to the

• Delete or redirect: per nom, It's now deprecated and superseded by the other templates mentioned.
  Talk Page · Contribs) 04:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose I fail to see why this has any relation to the citation templates, since you could use it in text, or as an external link. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is no policy forcing people to use the citation template system either, so I don't see why we should force people to use the system without a policy to support such a decision. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. If the citation template, which is pretty much the de facto standard, supports it, we should encourage users to use the standard template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although this template could be used for external linking in a
  WP:EL section, its actual use has been for references. And while there is no requirement to use templates at all when creating citations, there is still a good argument for not having unnecessary redundant citation templates when templates are used. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 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.

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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:French language infobox spoken (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:28, 13 March 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.

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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:French language infobox countries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Large, orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:27, 13 March 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.

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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DB liveries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, showing the timeline for the

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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cruise Ship Companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Cruise ship pages are currently using more specific navigation templates for the particular cruise ship company. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as likely uncontroversial housekeeping. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 15 March 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.

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 from template space. Individual editors are permitted to place warning messages in their own words, but template space is normally used for messages that have some consensus for widespread use, which this apparently does not. Copies in user space are potentially subject to

Template:Uw-bv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Template is a cross between a Level 1 and a Level 4im vandalism template. In my experience, users giving subsequent warnings after this template is placed seem not to know how to interpret its presence, considering I've seen Level 1 warnings added for further vandalism soon after this template was placed (i.e. the warning is not yet "stale") a number of times. Additionally, this single-issue is redundant to the full set of vandalism templates that people do know how to handle, and its wording has recently been adopted in the Level 4 and Level 4im templates, making this template quite redundant. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Out of date template. It was good when there was minor vandalism, but it's time to move on. mechamind90 17:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep template is still used, and not redundant. Wording is not the same as in
  snigbrook (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I can already see that the template is still used, but it might send an incorrect message to new editors that would otherwise receive a level 1 warning. Very strong cease and desist right off the bat is not a good idea. mechamind90 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends, there are various levels of warning and level 1 is not always the most appropriate.
    snigbrook (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well, the problem is that this is trying to be a level 1 and a 4im all rolled into one, and doesn't succeed in being either one. Other editors giving subsequent warnings don't know how to handle it in my experience. I've seen the level 1 come right after this template, and I've also seen blocks on subsequent vandalisms with this template used. Additionally, I've found level 1 warnings in my experience to be next to worthless, and so I start with level 2 warnings and bypass the first-tier warnings entirely. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually, but rarely use this template on the obvious blatant, registered account vandals, and I find that it gets the message across harshly, but efficiently. I've copied this to my userspace, so I don;t have an opinion on this deletion.

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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mexican Baseball Hall of Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 09:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The infobox is not used in any articles, orphaned. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 21:18, 13 March 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.