Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20 edit

Template:20 Largest Airlines by Fleet Size as of December 20, 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 delete —Mets501 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date specific, also does not fit well. Is it really necessary? Seems not. --—Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is based on data that changes just about every day. If we need this information, I'd suggest that the data be placed in an article. Vegaswikian 21:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The constituent data is characterized in much more detail in articles for each of the respective airlines. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought this template was a joke when I first saw it. Should we create one for tomorrow and the next day and so on? DB (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb †he Bread 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or delete. —CComMack (t–c) 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly Weak Delete - Its interesting (although could use a better name), but ultimately this really doesn't provide any depth behind the numbers. AA vs. FedEx? That doesn't make any sense. Plus it will be difficult to keep up, and add in arguments as to what fleets should be counted, (e.x. "America West/US Airways Group only lists the mainline fleets, not the wholly owned express carriers fleets).. —Cliffb 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Built-in obsolescence. --Dweller 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian. -- Hawaiian717 07:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You could make a list on it, but definitely don't add a date in the title. --Wizardman 05:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to rapid change in information. Like Vegaswikian said, include it in the article, like all those pages already have done.--Golich17 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian, et al --Allstar86 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Vegaswikian. It's unnecessary to list this in a template; it's listcrufting. Big top 16:50, 31 December 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.

Metra/NICTD color templates 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 deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were used by the Metra line and NICTD line infoboxes, which were superceded by s-rail and s-line (see TFD here). The colors were also used in Template:Metra Line Index which has been changed to use the Template:Metra color used by s-rail. -- Loco830/Espio (Rant) 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —CComMack (t–c) 00:00, 21 December 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.

Template:For loop 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is per se speedy deletable per CSD G4, but because I was the brain dead person the create former template in the first place, and as this template is seemingly used, I'll post a tfd instead. (The original template was Template:Foreach) _→AzaToth 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note to anyone who likes the idea here: Templates can not execute loops. I've tried it thoroughly, it can not be done with the current markup. You can have a pseudo one, such as exists here, but one actually in the place you want it is shorter, more efficient, and less ugly. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep. I tried to work up something without this template, and if I wanted to multiply the wikimarkup by about 500, I could manage it. But that would mean nobody could conceivably edit the template without breaking it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect most of the uses of this template are in {{atn}} Would you be able to change {{atn}} to avoid using {{For loop}} ? Gimmetrow 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Amarkov, how exactly does one go about putting a loop "in the place you want"? Perhaps you can make the necessary modifications to {{atn}}? – Gurch 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ew, I didn't realize how ugly this template was. I'll work on it later today. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment too: this template was copied from Meta. AzaToth, perhaps if you don't want anyone recreating it, you should bring it up at Meta? – Gurch 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch, just following policy :) _→AzaToth 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless there is some really good reason not to. Foreach was deleted citing WP:AMT. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 15.) That guideline has since been rejected and if this template is in use, why delete it? BigDT 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is only in use on one template, and Amarkov has suggested it might be possible to eliminate the need to have this as a separate template. But until that happens, I agree. In fact it's just occured to me I haven't "voted" yet, so...
Keep – only issue with this template is the whole "meta-template" thing, which has been extensively discussed and is currently regarded as a non-existent problem – and one which the developers will surely inform us of should it become a problem – Gurch 21:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have worked hard over the past few weeks creating the navigation bar for Talk archive files that is now called Template:atn and that, as noted above, requires the Template:For_loop. It was because I needed to use it in this application that I "imported" it from Meta. Without it, Template:atn will cease to function and all of the Talk archive pages that currently have it installed will lose their navbar. -- Polaris999 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why I nominated it here, was thet it's per definition a recreation of a deleted template, but as it's really used, I didn't wan't to throw it to CSD directly, so I decided to post it here, if the result is keep, I would suggest to move the template to it's original place att {{foreach}} _→AzaToth 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had no knowledge of its prior history when I was searching on Meta for a template that would simulate a loop in order to resolve an issue I had encountered while creating the navbar for Talk archive files and had the good fortune to discover it; I was forced to use this type of solution because the string function that I would have preferred to utilize is not implemented in Wikipedia. Re a possible name change, it would be a simple matter for either me or Gurch to change T:atn to use whatever name you decide to give to T:For_loop, but it would be very helpful if you would inform one of us about this change before you make it so that we can temporarily freeze T:atn while you do the re-name and then bring it back on line after we have modified the code as necessary to reflect the name change — this would keep strange things from happening to the Talk archive pages on which the navbar is currently installed. -- Polaris999 08:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since moving a page leaves a redirect from the old title, it wouldn't make any difference to the appearence of {{atn}}. I'll change it if and when the template does get moved, though – Gurch 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, this template is programmed like {{qif}}, rather than by using ParserFunctions, which is probably undesirable. --ais523 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Now that, I might be able to fix. I'll work on it some time next week, if it isn't already done. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original TfD is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 15, by WP:CSD G7. G7 of that time said "Author requests deletion." That is a reason that is not true this time. While this template looks like a work-around, it is useful. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Uh, what is this. Looks blank to me... --Wizardman 05:34, 26 December 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.

Template:Datasheet 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used for link spamming and should be removed. --Calltech 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there's a good reason why said site should be linked in many articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Calltech: thin disguise spam--BozMo talk 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the target site isn't even functional, so even if this weren't blatant spam, it would nonetheless be useless. Of course, it actually is blatant spam. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 14:58, 21 December 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.

Template:LACMTA Multi Transfer Station 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to m:Parser functions, the usage of this template has been intergrated into {{LACMTA Station}}. All transclusions changed to the parent template. Obseleted. --Hbdragon88 05:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) }}[reply]

Delete per nom. —CComMack (t–c) 00:00, 21 December 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.

Template:LACMTA Transfer Station 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to m:Parser functions, the usage of this template has been intergrated into {{LACMTA Station}}. All transclusions changed to the parent template. Obseleted.. --Hbdragon88 05:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) }}[reply]

Delete per nom. —CComMack (t–c) 00:00, 21 December 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.

Template:Tcseason 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can be replaced with a simple piped link. Besides, it's not a significant savings of typing anyways. Delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 02:27, 20 December 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.

Template:Future Television Episode 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dupe with the low case {{Future television episode}} This version is not in use. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundancy. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant †he Bread 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:35, 25 December 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.

Template:Recently Aired Television Episode 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The temporal templates are already part of heated debates. The Single Episode articles even more so, why add another category of confusion into the mix. Nothing uses this template, and it's category is non-existant. The name is also capitilized which is also not conform the naming of other Temporal Templates. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is does not work with shows that are broadcast around the world and is way too subjective to be useful (what is recently? 2 days? 4 days? a week?) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:34, 28 December 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.

Template:FA Premier League 2006/07; by USER: MAZITO 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless fork of {{FA Premier League teamlist}}, not used by any pages on Wikipedia. Qwghlm 15:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 15:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems odd, the creator put his own name in the title, not used †he Bread 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. - fchd 11:48, 21 December 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.

Template:Infobox LA Highway business 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, made obsolete by recent upgrades to {{Infobox LA Highway}}. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It doesn't seem to me that the new template actually makes this one obsolete. The new template has red links in it that make the new template seem like it's malfunctioning. I'd change this to delete if you could demonstrate to me how the new template renders this one obsolete. Diez2 03:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- U.S. Route 90 Business (New Orleans, Louisiana). Compare [1] with [2]. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reason the red links are there is because there's no shields created yet for those articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this template seems to be better than {{Infobox LA Highway}} at the moment. Could I suggest a merge, or that the latter is improved before it's deleted? -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, just exactly how is it better? Both templates do the same thing. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate further consensus, and as not to disrupt current discussion M a rtinp23 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del(ete) per Rschen7754 †he Bread 22:24, 20 December 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.