Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7, 2006 edit

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 speedy delete as a test / patent nonsense. Mairi 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SYN edit

Template:SYN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, seems to be a test template. howch e ng {chat} 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pagra shtak 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Either a test or patent nonsense (or both). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - What he said. ^^^^^^^^^ Recon0 21:36, 8 March 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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user cryofreeze edit

Useless userbox. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 17:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Absolutely useless, per nom. Jared 18:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete Single use template. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. useless. Kaldari 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only Greek Gods like me are immortal, freezing yourself doesn't work.--God Ω War 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, together with its empty category. Mushroom (Talk) 09:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as the category --rogerd 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not know of any cases where people have been successfully brought back to life after being cryogenically frozen. Even if it were to happen, it will be decades, if not centuries, before it does. --TML1988 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can't (yet) be used in seriousness, but, as Mojo Nixon said to Don Henley, "Don't be afraid of fun, loosen up your ponytail; be wild, young, free, and dumb; get your head out of your tail." Lighten up and let people have some fun. Kurt Weber 15:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless. The useless category should be shot to Sun though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:54, 14 March 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 unanimous: delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazil infobox edit

Delete because it was reformated to fit the Infobox country template that most other pages use MJCdetroit 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (moved from afd —Cryptic (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roxi2 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CG 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--naryathegreat | (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:22, 12 March 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 Redirect to Template:Infobox Municipality pt since one replaced the other. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of Portugal Infobox edit

Template:Municipalities of Portugal Infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant to Template:Infobox Municipality pt, which is used in much more articles and includes more relevant information Afonso Silva 11:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Kaldari 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:22, 12 March 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 unanimous: delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Timor infobox edit

Delete per nom. Pagra shtak 06:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, singleuse metatemplate. --Golbez 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roxi2 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom
Delete per nom.--naryathegreat | (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:22, 12 March 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 and subst/merge the text into the article lead section. In this discussion, there has not really been a compelling case on why a boilerplate would be more effective than just having the same message in the article lead section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current-Broadway-Show edit

I agree. It's really not worth having it as it'll be obvious from the article content almost immediately. ChrisGlew 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel that being that many of the Broadway templates have been damaged in a way that they present something such as {{{{1}}}} as the play's existance time, that the templates should be changed just to Broadway with no date, for it can easily be found within the article when it started and ended. But the template should be kept: for many people encounter the problem of knowing whether a musical/play was on Broadway or not. Alex Good March 7th 2006 8:14 (PTE)
- Just for the record, this is the users third edit. --Conti|✉ 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to hear from an editor who edits Broadway shows if this template has any use similar to that of Template:Current. That is, does being a current Broadway show significantly affect the state of the article? My gut says no, but I'd like to make sure. Pagra shtak 06:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, having a look at a few random articles containing the template I'd say it's not comparable to Template:Current, but I'm not an expert. Some broadway shows run for years, even decades, it would be silly to have the template there all the time. A better solution would be using categories, like Category:Currently running Broadway-shows. --Conti|✉ 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm leaning towards delete now. I don't see why this information can't be included in the infobox or lead section. The template is too distracting. Pagra shtak 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It may be useless and can be put into words, but it can be useful for quickly getting the point across. Jared 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What point, exactly? Or rather, what point that can't get across the same way when put into words? --Conti|✉ 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well if you look at the page, you will be able to say, "That's interesting, its still on Broadway!", but I also agree that it is ugly-ish and pointless. I am still neutral. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the one who created the template (as a contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Theatre) and I see your points. I think what I was trying to accomplish was distinguishing that handful of shows that are currently running on broadway. Yes, it's possible to put it into a sentence somewhere in the article, but that's not always standard, and I thought this would be good easy quick reference. I understand now it's not the most eye-appealing thing in the world, and I could go for the category that Conti suggested. Let's keep talking about it. Clarkefreak ∞ 21:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might I suggest putting the template at the bottom and restructuring it. Here's my suggestion for the new template {{User:JP06035/current broadway}}...criticism?:

This show has been on Broadway since DATE

--Jared ^[T]/_[+] 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. We don't see templates for current movies, or current TV series, so why we should advertise for a current brodway show? CG 11:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well worth having. Ardenn 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not for advertising. If we keep this template, we should also have a template for current movies, current TV series, current shows. But wikipedia is not Yahoo!Movies. CG 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point, and it uses an unsourced image. --Carnildo 06:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This info should be included in the lead anyway. Flower party■ 20:44, 11 March 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.