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 Martinp23 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CornishTown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is a POV fork of Template:Infobox England place. It has been used to promote the belief that Cornwall should not be part of England. --Alan Pascoe 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Orphan, not used in article space, and redundant with Template:Infobox England place, not to mention the POV issues. Chris talk back 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and obvious redundancy. Cbrown1023 01:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comments:- a/ This template is orphaned because it was recently removed from all Cornish town articles by the proposer of this deletion request. b/ the only difference between this template and template 'Infobox England place' is the absence of any flags. c/ Cornwall is widely recognised as one of six Celtic nations, a Duchy, as well as a county and it has been suggested on 'Talk Cornwall' that any flag appearing in the Cornish town infoboxes may be considered superfluous and to some even inflammatory. d/ A 2004 Morgan Stanley survey indicated that 44% of Cornish inhabitants view themselves as Cornish (i.e. not English or British). e/ The Cornish were recently recognised on the 2001 national census as a national minority with their own census code of '06' allocated for this purpose). please see:-

Talk Cornwall Gulval 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (a) and (b) irrelevant, because all this seems to do is create a specific case of ((Infobox England place)) with some of the fields pre-filled. (c) is irrelevant, since there's no specific additional information required on the articles in question, (d) is a POV matter, and the figure is questionable unless they have actually interviewed the entire population, and (e) is a non-issue. None of your points answer the concerns raised in terms of policy. Chris cheese whine 23:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant -flag and thus POV. Templates are not the place for pushing political desire, but merely for organising reality. Tewfik^Talk 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this POV fork. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐
• Delete per nom.--Aldux 23:25, 25 November 2006 (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 page.

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 a narrow delete. --humblefool® 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A week from today (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As said on the template, it is useless. It has been made redundant by ParserFunctions. This just puts unnecessary load on the servers. ><RichardΩ612 ^UW 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it does use parser functions, and I'm sure the average user would find ((a week from today)) to be more intuitive than typing ((#time: d-m-Y|+7 days))... That said it's not actualy used outside a couple of image cleanup templates that could easily do without it. --Sherool (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The people who would need to use this template can probably figure out the parser function. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per template itself: "This template is officially worthless." Hbdragon88 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Amarkov. Cbrown1023 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate per ParserFunctions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate but keep This template was used once; there's interesting history, and it will help guide users who need to know this (say by seeing it in an old permlink page) to what to do now. --ais523 09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I'm not sure what benefit there would be to maintain it as a depreciation, Tewfik^Talk 06:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate but no delete with note on the page of how to generate the functionality using ParserFunctions. No pain as it will not be transcluded, and hence will not have an effect on the servers. Ansell 10:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 Martinp23 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tycoon series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template does not list a series of computer games, but rather any number of computer games that have the word "tycoon" in their title but are otherwise unrelated, and published by a variety of software houses. This is simply not a meaningful grouping; it should either be deleted or pruned to smaller templates that only contain a single actual series each. (Radiant) 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Template based on arbitrary grouping of video games with a common word in their title. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tycoon computer game, where the main article associated with this template is up for deletion as an externally unverifiable genre of possible original research. -- saberwyn 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arbitrary collection shouts delete to me. Chris talk back 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless pruned, Tewfik^Talk 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbitrary collection Aaronw 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too much for a template. --Thorpe | talk 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Of course this should be deleted, like Radiant said, the only way they are related is through their title - The RSJ 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. They aren't necessarily unrelated- indeed, they are all tycoon computer games. However, perhaps a better solution would be a list of the games, either on the article or on a separate page itself? -- Sarranduin ^(Talk)
  • The problem is that the main relating criteria is that the games have Tycoon in the title... otherwise they are no different from economic simulator games. While a lit of the games share common links of publisher, several do not. It is an arbritary classification, like stating all FPS games with "Tour" in the title are linked. -- saberwyn 09:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article may be original research, but this is just a list. Its not even that bad a list, it has a clear criteria for inclusion, ie, having tycoon in the name. Not sure what is so abhorent about the template to people here... Ansell 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

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 all Martinp23 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1931-32Scudetto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and doesn't seem to have any real use. The information can just be added to articles without the need for all these boxes! ><RichardΩ612 ^UW 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for the same reason:

• Template:1932-33Scudetto
• Template:1933-34Scudetto
• Template:1934-35Scudetto
• Template:2000-01Scudetto
• Template:2001-02Scudetto
• Template:2002-03Scudetto
• Template:2003-04Scudetto
• Template:2005-06A-League
• Template:2005-06Scudetto [Used on the user page of the creator of these templates]

• Delete all. They do not appear to be used anywhere (save for 2005-06Scudetto, which appears on two user pages). Chris talk back 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Chris. Cbrown1023 02:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Chris, Tewfik^Talk 06:44, 24 November 2006 (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 page.

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 Martinp23 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ULL.CLS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misleading (it's basicaly just a variation on ((permission)), but read like a "free use" template simmilar to ((No rights reserved))). It is also (fortunately) only used on one image. it aserts that "This image is a work of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Center for Louisiana Studies Center for Cultural and Eco-Tourism. This work is copyrighted, but use is allowed as long as credit is given.". Problem is permission to use alone is not enough to qualify as free content, and furthermore it seems to be based on a permission to use only one particular image (see Image:Louisiana regions map.gif) rater than a blanket policy of the center. --Sherool (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace all applications with ((permission)) or similar, and then delete. Not a valid licence for Wikipedia since 19 May 2005. Chris talk back 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Chris. Cbrown1023 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete single-use non-valid licence, Tewfik^Talk 19:04, 24 November 2006 (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 page.

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. --humblefool® 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prime_Television_New_Zealand_primetime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In breach of Copyright, note similar discussion for other NZ freetoair channel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_22#Template:TV3_.28New_Zealand.29_Primetime_Schedule). Collaborate 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting to generate actual discussion. --humblefool® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A template violating WP:NOT, haven't seen that in a while. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interesting and informative, but violates WP:NOT. Cbrown1023 02:58, 23 November 2006 (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 page.

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 no consensus, but it's probably deleteable at MFD. Martinp23 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Silver Dollar City/SDC stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I know what you're thinking - why have I brought this here rather than MFD? It isn't a template. Well, its creator seems to think it is, and it's currently being used as a template. And not a stub template either, despite its name. I've no objection to the Silver Dollar City WikiProject - all one member of it - having a template to put on articles about its rides but:

1. it should work properly (this one doesn't close, so any text placed after it is contained within the template);
2. it shouldn't be called something "stub", since it isn't a stub template;
3. it should really BE a template in template space, not a pseudo-attempted-template-page-thing.

As such, I'd suggest that this be fixed so that it works properly, moved to a name like Template:SDC ride, and the current mess be deleted. PS - if it's deemed that this should be at MFD rather than here, feel free to move it there - it really was a toss-up between the two! Grutness...wha? 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting to generate actual discussion. --humblefool® 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looks like this was being used as an experimental copy of Template:Infobox roller coaster. I've fixed the article to use that, and the other box that was at the Buzz Saw Falls article he edited shortly afterwards. Without further knowledge of how these WikiProject things work, I don't know what he *should* have done though. Possibly the experimental copy of the Infobox roller coaster template is now redundant? --Stoive 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they certainly shouldn't have had it as a subpage if it was a template, which is pretty much my original point. If it was a template experiment, it should still have been a template, and it also certainly shouldn't have had "stub" as part of its name, since it isn't a stub template. A gree that if it was a prototype that's been superceded, then it can probably go for that reason alone. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 23 November 2006 (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 page.