Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 17

: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 {{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y| JPG-GR (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)}}}} delete. JPG-GR (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• {{tfdlinks|Racing Club managers}}
• {{tfdlinks|San Lorenzo de Almagro managers}}
• {{tfdlinks|Club Atlético Huracán managers}}

Templates without content, Clicking [show] reveals no information at all, these 3 templates are only used as decorative couloured bands rather than collapsed templates as intended (see here). King of the North East 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Is it not possible to populate these templates? This would certainly serve more of a purpose than just deleting them! – PeeJay 21:50, 21 July 2009 (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 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{{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y| Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)}}}} Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|Law schools in Massachusetts}}

Redundant template, as the more comprehensive navbox :Template:Law schools of New England already includes the info included in this template. Masonpatriot (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (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 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 {{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y| JPG-GR (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)}}}} withdrawn by nominator. JPG-GR (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|Triad Broadcasting}}

No real information in the templatel, just a weblink. Template has been in use since early 2008 and hasn't seen any updating since May of 2008. Requesting delete. NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 09:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as it's a navbox with absolutely no navigational capability at present. Triad is a substantial radio station group owner and a navbox linking all of their properties (like {{tl|CBS Radio}}, for example) would be both useful and welcome so I would not be opposed to recreation of this template in the future and if an enterprising editor were to add links for their stations to this navbox I would absolutely change my !vote. - Dravecky (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Change to Keep as template now serves a significant navigational purpose. - Dravecky (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and expand: I'm probably the silly editor that made it; I think I created it thinking I'd get to adding the station links "really soon now" and never did. It's formatted and added to the articles it should be; it's just not completed yet. I'll try and do it tonight. If it helps with the Keep vote: this template does add stations to :Category:Triad Broadcasting radio stations as well, so even if the empty navbox looks silly, it would have been a good idea to keep it around (with no visuals) because it's already doing work before someone gets around to recreating a navbox. Thanks to User:Neutralhomer for giving me a heads-up. --Closeapple (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've got the stations listed now. I can't find what d/b/a the West Virginia station group traditionally uses — maybe they were never a group except as Triad. I also need to look at the source form (or a newer one if I can find it) and verify that I got all the stations — I compiled the list mostly from :Category:Triad Broadcasting radio stations except for the Mississippi group. --Closeapple (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: According to the FCC database, each of those stations is licensed to "Monterey Licenses, LLC". - Dravecky (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• :Yep. Triad uses that LLC as the license-holder for all their stations now. Maybe the way to discover the group name is to find out what company used to own the group, if it was indeed a group. Adventure and JMP were their own radio groups before they were acquired by Triad. --Closeapple (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• OK, I think I've got the full list now. If they had any other stations, they would have filed another ownership report since 2008, I would think. There was a document that noted them having a couple translator stations in South Dakota in the list, but I didn't look more closely, and I think they've since sold off the SD stations. --Closeapple (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Withdrawn - With the large amount of work done to the template, I withdraw my request for deletion. Good work. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:55, 19 July 2009 (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 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 {{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y| JPG-GR (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)}}}} keep. JPG-GR (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|RMlink}}

The template was used in Wikipedia:Requested moves to file a move request before the page started to be updated by a bot. The bot doesn't use RMlink, and there's no other use for the template that I know of. This could be deleted or marked as deprecated, unless someone comes up with a use for it. Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it might be a good idea to keep an alternative manual procedure for if the bot malfunctions, or for some other reason cannot be used. --GW… 08:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with GW. I, for one, am still not convinced of the long-term use of the bot procedure. Either way, at worst, it should be deprecated/marked historical/etc. JPG-GR (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2009 (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 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 {{#if:|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|y| JPG-GR (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)}}}} delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{tfdlinks|Current women's universities and colleges in the Southern United States}}

Redundant template, as the more comprehensive navbox :Template:Current women's universities and colleges in the United States already includes the info included in this template. Masonpatriot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::Delete. I agree that it's redundant and unnecessary. The US template isn't that big, and if one wanted to he/she could group it into regions (come to think of it, I really like that idea...). --King of the Arverni (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's not orphan. Should we just remove it or replace it with the other one in the pages that transclude it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2009 (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 section.