Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11

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. Sr13 07:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elisha Cuthbert's Films And Televisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe that this template is not helpful or noteworthy. It is present on Elisha Cuthbert's article which already includes a filmography; making this template redundant. It has also been placed on all articles about movies/TV shows that she has appeared in. I mean no disrespect to her, but I don't feel that she is famous/noteworthy enough to warrant the creation or inclusion of this template on such pages. What if every actor had a template like this one that was placed on every article about a movie/TV show that have been in? Articles would be cluttered with unnecessary templates. I therefore nominate this template for deletion.— NatureBoyMD 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, this template creates a "slippery slope" that ends with high-budget movies having five or six of these templates on them. Actors and actresses are already listed in a "cast" section in the articles for pieces in which they've appeared, and their individual articles have (or should have) sections listing the movies in which they've appeared. Users can already navigate both ways, without templates like these. PaladinWhite 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could imagine an ensemble cast movie like Bobby with a dozen such templates if this precedent is set. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all editors above gave very good reasons. Actors and movies/TV is a many-to-many mapping. The "many" isn't a handful, it's really many. Imagine what it would be like if we have a nav box for every actor. This is something that should be avoided in a M2M mapping. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Little navigational value in the film/TV articles. –Pomte 05:57, 14 June 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.

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. Sr13 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inappropriate username (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No longer used template, serves the same purpose as {{UsernameBlocked}}. — •Clyde• (a.k.a Mystytopia) 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you could prod templates, this one will be the first to go. Per nom. Evilclown93_(talk) 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an unused template. Acalamari 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an unused template and there is a template that has the same function.--James, La gloria è a dio 10:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{unb}}, this just causes confussion. GDonato (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Inappropriate username is relatively younger, never edited, not used, and the creator is properly notified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unused and redundant per {{UsernameBlocked}}. Carlosguitar 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Current {{UsernameBlocked}} adequately does the job. No need for another template. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I agree with what Carlosguitar said. We do not need another templete.Politics rule 15:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No Redeeming Value. Dfrg.msc 06:19, 14 June 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.

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(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is template is not helpful, hides references (which is unnecessary and counterproductive), and is inferior to Template:Reflist. — Aaron Bowen 18:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with caveat For a number of reasons spelled out on Template talk:Scrollref, I believe this template superior to Reflist for one reason: Extremely lengthy footnotes sections (100+), such as those found here and here tend to obscure the content that follows - External links, very often See also, navbox tempplates, etc. Any references not shown in the first results are only click further away (mouse focus in the scroll box) than they would have been before, and are in no way obscured or affected when reached through - In my book an acceptable trade off for a more polished design and more accessible final sections.

And now the caveat: The template currently renders when the page is shown in the printable layout, resulting in any references that would have been accessible to a reader with a web-browser being inaccessible to the print reader. Possibly also raises issues for disabled users with screen readers. If this cannot be speedily remedied, notify me - I'll gladly help in removing any remaining instances prior to deletion.

The template is currently disabled, having been replaced with {{reflist|2}}, without a template:scroll box, which will allow some grace time for its replacement if necessary. Note that the problem at hand also extends to both template:scroll box and the alternative template:scrollbox - Both should be either be removed or flagged with a cautionary note urging caution in their use.MrZaius^talk 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Relatively few article contain footnote sections which are unacceptably large. And for those that are large this template makes accessability worse. Mark83 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it makes the article look better and it's more clearly-presented and even if it hides any notes, why not, this template doesn't hinder somebody from finding the sources etc. Reidlos 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not understand the attitude that the references are something to hide. They are part of the article. When I need to do my own research on a subject, I look to the references. When I want to evaluate just how reliable a particular Wikipedia article is, I look to the references (their number & diversity, at least). The references are what legitimize an article, they aren't shameful things to be swept under the rug. If there really are issues with people being able to find the "See also" or "External links" sections, the better answer would be to move those sections above the references in the article. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See also sections are supposed and generally are above reference sections (see WP:GTL) as for promoting external links, that's not what WIkipedia is here for (See WP:NOT, "wikipedia is not a web directory"). Aaron Bowen 05:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold untill agreement is achieved whether to use or not to use. I think the effort to build this template was an honest effort. Although I am not in favour of this template I would delay the discussion to delete it altogether until consensus has evolved in the debate on its talk page Template talk:Scrollref. If consensus becomes, that this template should not be used, deletion seems in place; otherwise it should be kept. Arnoutf 09:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated on the template's Talk page: While the "long references list makes it difficult for some to notice following items like See Also" argument has merit, there are too many disadvantages to this solution. Most importantly, having a long list of references is in no way something that needs to be hidden or downplayed. It will also likely confuse many people to have multiple scroll bars (I see this quite often with users I support or am kind enough to help). In addition, I have some other concerns related to likely difficulties the disabled, particularly the motor impaired, may experience with this template. This appears to be a solution in search of a problem. --ElKevbo 10:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said above according to WP:GTL and most articles I've seen, see also sections are supposed to go above reference sections. Aaron Bowen 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold untill agreement is achieved whether to use or not to use. Agree with Arnoutf even though I would prefer not to use this template. --Cyktsui 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- While I do agree that the opinions expressed on the template's talk page should be taken into account in this discussion, I see no reason to end this process prematurely especially since debate on the talk page seems to have ceased since the template was nominated here.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold/Keep I think editors should have the option to semi-collapse footnotes with this type of option. At Chicago Landmark it was add here] to replace {{scroll box}}. It does not seem to be working in Firefox. I may revert to scroll box, but feel these types of semi-collapsibility options are important. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest grouping all the "City of Chicago Dept. of Pl. and Devpmt., Landmarks Div." sources under one heading to remove all the repetition, wiith the year and accessdate mentioned once at the top. This may not be exactly proper style, but it's common sense. –Pomte 08:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Discuss this at RFC or talk page of MOS or GTL The question of deleting this template depends on whether we want to adopt this style or not. I have not made up my mind yet. But I think the process would be flawed if we only discuss it here. People who have seen this template and don't like it would voice their opinion on Template talk:Scrollref and eventually landed here. People who like the template are less likely to go to the talk page and say "hey, this is a good idea". They probably wouldn't visit the template page at all. In addition, the decision has a huge implication to the site. So more audience would be prudent. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though the template has been disabled for now pending technical issues, the link to this deletion debate is still visible on every page this template has already been transcluded into. I think that should attract enough interested parties. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fair enough. My position is neutral now. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because otherwise people will use its non-deletion as an excuse for adopting it.--Eloquence* 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so it doesn't get adopted per Eloquence. Kusma (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bad idea that will become just as troublesome as widespread use of {{reflist}} is, as Eloquence said. Circeus 21:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• IMHO, assuming both bad faith and stupidity in order to delete this template doesn't help that much. Deleting it will only create unfair prejudice against recreation (WP:CSD#G4) and provide an "easy consensus" without the annoying requirement of using logic. I'm not that big of a fan of the template (most issues mentioned above could be resolved with CSS, such as the page-printing issue, but accessibility is an issue I'm worried about). I suggest we take discussion to a more appropriate forum, the template talk page. Gracenotes^T § 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the template will be deftinively useful for long ref lists --Andersmusician $ 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References are as worthy of being shown on the page as the external links below, and more worthy than semi-related articles in collapsed navigational templates. They are the highlight of many articles, especially in the case of content disputes, misinterpretations, numerous quotes given in citation templates that provide context, and numerous citations to a single source. People should be able to access the sources as easily as possible, and to glance over them while scrolling through the article to see the breadth and briefly consider their reliability. This template places undue weight on article content, and there are already enough concerns about Wikipedia being unreliable. The reasons given on the talk page are not convincing, and there's no need to fork this discussion back there. –Pomte 08:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this template is very interesting (i think i may import it in our it.wiki too!)--DrugoNOT 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete scrollref, not scroll box I am the one who originally brought up the idea. I think I'm humble enough to accept my idea not being adopted. Here are the reasons:

Pros

• For casual readers, who don't want to see a gazillion references, this template is good

Cons

• For students, or researchers, it would be hard to navigate through ref.
• Serious usability issue. If you scroll up and down, and then your cursor happens to land within the box, further scrolling takes place in the box.
• For editors, it's hard to glance through the ref to find opportunities to improve

Besides the number of bullet points above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all. Students and researchers should be given more weight. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems gimmicky. I also like the idea that you can click on a ref in a normal article and you'll go directly to the ref. I actually think that's pretty cool. Also don't like the appearance. Marcus Taylor 11:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ChoChoPK. heqs ·:. 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's an eyesore and adds inconsistency. If this is done it should be site-wide, not per-page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to accessibility issues. Mgiganteus1 14:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I like it, it keeps articles short. Alientraveller 18:07, 21 June 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.

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 subst and deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template does nothing, simply replacing the template code with "secure" on the article page. That could easily be typed on its own. The only problem I see with deletion is that many articles use the template in their infoboxes, and someone would need to go through and replace it at those articles; this could be easily accomplished by someone using AWB, or I would be happy to do it manually, (before the template is deleted, so I can use "what links here,") if consensus is reached here that it should indeed be deleted. — PaladinWhite 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep apparently this is being used as a method to track endangered species status in infoboxes. I would bring the matter up with the appropriate wikiproject and ask them what their plans for it are before I would be comfortable deleting this. -N 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• subst and delete all now that template creator has explained his reasoning (below). -N 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it is only one word, and typing the template takes up a bit more time. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might only be one word, but if we ever want to change it, e.g. to add a tick or set a background colour, it only has to be changed in one place. I see this template as following basic modular programming principles. Hesperian 23:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you say used to be the case, but now the taxobox template handles it. The contents of the template is not actually transcluded — it's the key for a switch statement. So adding a tick to all "secure" species (as in your example) can be achieved by changing only the taxobox template (which would update the species that have "secure" as their status as well as those using this template. —Pengo 05:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. This might make sense if the standard terminology were something hard to remember, like "dsgfhargea". But to use this template, you already have to know that the proper term is "secure", because it is in the title. So this just adds 10 extra characters. -Amarkov moo! 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep This template is used by many articles that span multiple wikiprojects. They should be notified. I will respect the decision of the editors of these projects. But if they are not notified, I would vote for keep. Beside easy tracking, as User:N pointed out, the style can be easily changed in the future if the species editors decide to color-code these things. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being, at least. It's an artifact of the way {{taxobox}} functions. Subst'ing might very well be impossible, and deleting would breaks hundreds of pages. Circeus 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the taxobox doesn't actually use it. I don't see why a template is required... -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does, but not directly (that is, the template is not transcluded in template:taxobox, but it does transclude in many articles). I think it's hidden in some of the {{#switch}}. The taxobox certainly transcludes it in articles: look at Amanita muscaria, caraway and Acer saccharum! Circeus 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (after replacing all uses with the word secure) I'm the guy who changed the taxobox enough to allow this (and many related templates) to become redundant and unnecessary. However, to lessen the impact of the transition I made sure the old templates still worked. It's not there for tracking purposes (you could use a category for that) it's there for legacy reasons (I didn't personally want to update taxoboxes to the new syntax unless I was sure the species were "secure", as the conservation status of "secure" is itself somewhat dubious and rarely (ever?) referenced.. And also I don't use AWB). But there's really no special reason this template cannot be replaced on all articles that use it simply with the word "secure". Full list of related (deprecated) templates: {{StatusSecure}} (secure), {{StatusDomesticated}} (DOM), {{StatusConcern}} (LR), {tl|StatusLeastConcern}} (LC), {{StatusNearConcern}} (NT), {{StatusConserveConcern}} (LR/cd), {{StatusVulnerable}} (VU), {{StatusEndangered}} (EN), {{StatusCritical}} (CR), {{StatusExtinctW}} (EW), {{StatusExtinct|when=[[year]]}} (EX), {{StatusData}} (DD), {{StatusUnknown}} (NE), {{StatusFossil}} (fossil), {{StatusPrehistoric}} (pre), {{StatusSeeText}} (text). (note: PE had no template). I would love to see all these go. —Pengo 04:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Pengo. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but only once all the current articles using it have been altered to "secure" Gnangarra 05:48, 22 June 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.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pagina principale/Progetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Pagina principale/Progetti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Pagina principale/Colonna destra chiusura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Pagina principale/Colonna destra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Template:FinestraHome3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

it's just a collection of italian wikipedia templates for userspace, and is just linked between themselves, to User:João Felipe C.S, User:WISo, and User:Akradecki. — Andersmusician $ 02:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. These are not in intelligible English. YechielMan 03:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - use the English ones, don't make Italian ones. --Haemo 07:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete use English. Btw, I notified User:WISo for {{Interprogetto}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Felipe ^{( talk )} 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment have you thought Joao in moving these to userspace? --Andersmusician $ 16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template:FinestraHome3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Delete the rest. Not sure how Template:FinestraHome3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) got mixed in with the others, as it is not in Italian, and not related to the others. I'd appreciate the nom explaining this. Not only is this in English, but is used by people like User:Phaedriel to build people's user pages, mine being an example of this. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe, but this one might not be following policies (WP:NOT), have you thought about moving it to userspace? --Andersmusician $ 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy to move it to my userspace, but a move while it's at TfD is not appropriate. Will move when it closes. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or rename those that are used to English names, delete those that are unused. Kusma (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all are being used --Andersmusician $ 21:07, 12 June 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.

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. Sr13 23:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Washington Redskins depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Tennessee Titans depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Tampa Bay Buccaneers depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Seattle Seahawks depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:San Diego Chargers depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Philadelphia Eagles depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:New York Giants depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Minnesota Vikings depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Houston Texans depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Detroit Lions depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Dallas Cowboys depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Carolina Panthers depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Arizona Cardinals depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:St. Louis Rams depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:San Francisco 49ers depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Pittsburgh Steelers depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Oakland Raiders depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:New York Jets depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:New Orleans Saints depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:New England Patriots depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Miami Dolphins depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Kansas City Chiefs depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Jacksonville Jaguars depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Indianapolis Colts depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Green Bay Packers depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Denver Broncos depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Cleveland Browns depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Cincinnati Bengals depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Chicago Bears depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Buffalo Bills depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Baltimore Ravens depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Atlanta Falcons depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:NFL depth chart 3-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:NFL depth chart 4-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Voted for deletion by 7-0 vote at WP:NFL. — Pats1 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the vote: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Poll_2 Bjewiki 10:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I combined these into one TfD, as they're similar, have the same deletion rationale, and it's much easier to read. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thanks, I just noticed that tag after nominating all of them! Pats1 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appear un-needed. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+Delete, per project's discussion, and especially WP:V concerns. Neier 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I didn't see the project discussion, but we can manage without these. For templates like this, the Wikiproject's decision is all but binding because these require frequent maintenance, and if nobody wants to maintain them, they shouldn't be used anymore. YechielMan 03:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletethe lot - the project knows best, and their logic is compelling. --Haemo 07:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I respect the domain experts a lot. But if you were going to post this outside of the project space, please do these two things:

1. Link to the the poll directly
2. Explain what "depth chart" is (like to an Australian who doesn't know much about American football), and what is the main reason for deletion beside "vote from a project"? Changes to often like stock prices? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment 2 There is a related AFD. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2 The creator of the original depth chart articles (which will go up for deletion as empty redirects after these - i.e. New England Patriots Depth Chart) also created an article on depth charts NFL depth charts, which should help you with understanding a depth chart more. There are essentially two problems with listing them on Wikipedia:

Unlike rosters, most teams don't publish their official depth charts, and thus it's up to an editor to use an unofficial chart or make up their own, which violates WP:NOR.

Because of this, it's impossible to keep track of the minor day-to-day changes made to each chart. It's best to just leave a link to an official or unofficial one, as has been done with all roster templates (i.e. Template:New England Patriots roster) Pats1 13:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few links of note:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current NFL team depth charts

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Depth charts (botton of section)

13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Resolute 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke, as their basically all single use templates and when they're substituted, the template ceases to have any use at all. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom and consensus reached by WikiProject. Aaron Bowen 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after the nominator's explanation. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cascade delete per nominator below. (delete templates and the mainspace redirects to them). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could the categories also be deleted - Category:National Football League depth chart templates and its subcategory Category:NFL depth charts, which contains the older-style templates. This would save me a bunch of time. Thanks. Pats1 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm having a problem getting DavidRFLA to understand that the template has been nominated for deletion and that it has already been removed from Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He believes that his article - Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart - which was the original format for depth charts - is his own property and that the template deletion doesn't apply. In fact, every [[CITY TEAM Depth Chart]] article was redirected to their template counterparts when the templates were created as an easier alternative. He has removed the TFD tag from the template as well, and redirected the template to the article, which he has removed my redirect from. I was already planning on putting Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart and the rest of the old articles up for deletion as redirects to non-existent pages, but should I go ahead with it now, before the templates are actually deleted? I've tried to talk to him, but he continues to believe that the article is "his." Pats1 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They'll all be deleted soon, so I wouldn't bother with him. If they're deleted and he tries to recreate the Bucs chart then I'd just notify an admin who will speedy delete it. Aaron Bowen 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete All, per WP:A and WP:OR - most teams have yet to reveal their actual depth chart. Maybe we can re-add it when we have some form on confirmation. ----►ShadowJester07  09:31, 15 June 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.