Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 13

< July 12	July 14 >

July 13

Template:UEFA cup finals

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 and redirect to new template. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA cup finals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not needed now that there is new and better table in the List of UEFA Cup champions page. NapHit (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant and not transcluded anywhere. In fact the new page is an improvement. Peanut4 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no use. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 16:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and redirect to Template:UEFA Cup Final. Punkmorten (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Punkmorten. – Pee Jay 18:29, 16 July 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.

Various Welcome 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 userfy and delete the resulting redirects. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chili's test template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

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

Template:Redmarkviolinist/Welcome1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:User:Prom3th3an/welcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

These welcome templates are all user specific and should be moved to the user namespace. — WOSlinker (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - My name space, My template, I use it combined with huggle. It is imformative about the Wikipedia policy and guidelines. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Pages in a user's pages can be subst'ed just like regular templates. All of these should be moved. --Thetrick (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Thetrick. Personal warning templates should not be in the main template namespace, they should be in your userspace. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can i remove mine from the lsit seeing that it is already in my userspace? «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The template listed above is not in your userspace. --Thetrick (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Don't care. As long as I still have my template somewhere, somehow. --Deenoe 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Not useful enough to be utilised in the template namespace, should be moved to User:Prom3th3an/welcome template for example. Rudget (logs) 11:00, 19 July 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:2008 Legends Game - Victorian Team

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! 05:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 Legends Game - Victorian Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is for a charity game which is played annually and in the context of the competing footballer's careers is not notable. Participation in the game is barely worthy of a mention on a footballer's article and certainly, in my opinion, not required as a template. Squad should just be posted on the relevant article, E. J. Whitten Legends Game. — Crickettragic (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 10:08, 23 July 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:Db-blanktalk

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 speedily deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per WP:CSD#T2 (Template is a misrepresentation of established policy). PeterSymonds (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-blanktalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Taking this to TfD after trying both redirection, and trying to tag the template itself as a speedy delete under WP:CSD#T2. This is one of those templates that get slipped in under the radar, and after a while start giving the wrong impression about what is or isn't a speedy deletion candidate. Basically, it's a CSD template that doesn't pass it's cited criteria (WP:CSD#G6). There's no real need for such a speedy in any case, since this template would only apply to situations where the corresponding main page does still exist. We already have WP:CSD#G8 for talk pages without a main page. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and transform to a new criterion: We need a speedy deletion template for the following case:
- The main page exists and someone creates a Talk page to just add a project template tag and the tag doesn't really apply or the project is not active anymore.
- The main page exists and someone creates a Talk page not to discuss about the article itself but uses it as a Forum.
- The main page exists as a redirect, the Talk page has trivial edit history and consists only of project tags (This is a very common case as I noticed).

For The first two cases the only option was blanking and for the last one was redirecting to the corresponding talk page. I prefer the deletion strategy for simplification and to keep things clean. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting proposal, but right now this template should not be used. I doubt any of those three proposals would be accepted anyways, as none of them actually justify deletion. If the main page exists and is not a redirect, then it's completely inevitable that the talk page will one day be created. Making the link red instead of blue doesn't make anything more clean. In the third case the obvious solution (assuming the project tag isn't needed) would be to redirect the talk page as well. -- Ned Scott 08:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When redirects are created via the AfC process, we create the talk page and add the AfC tag as a matter of course. No harm in keeping this I think. MSGJ (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - better to get rid of this and start from scratch. Sorry, Magioladitis, but from what I can see, it is being used in the wrong way and giving the wrong impression, as Ned says. There are many ways to deal with blank talk pages, and deletion should not be the automatic choice. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Carcaroth. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given. MSGJ (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how G6 could cover that. While it may not be a bad idea, currently we don't have a speedy criteria for it. If a criteria is written, I'd be happy to restore the template for you (and move it to [[Template:db-<whatever>]]) so all you have to do is change the CSD cited for it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as it exists, it is not helpful, and we need some discussion for a proper replacement, if any. Personally, I can't see why an empty or almost empty talk page is worth the trouble of deleting at all. DGG (talk) 01:50, 14 July 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.