Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

April 17 edit

Template:Warnrm 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 as misrepresenting policy. Also, per Grace, we've seen this before. >Radiant< 09:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template makes inaccurate/misleading statements about policy. There is considerable disagreement about wether removing warnings should be prohibited, no consesus has been reached, and the current policy does not prohibit it. This template makes it sound like removing warnings is prohibited. It should be deleted. — Monty845 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:USER only says that removing warnings is frowned upon. A boilerplate template is unlikely to encourage the user to stop removing other boilerplate templates. –Pomte 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, already been through DRV and rejected. Gracenotes ^T § 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By speedy delete, I mean WP:CSD#G4. Gracenotes ^T § 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template predates the deletion of the templates you referenced. It may still warrant speedy deletion under the logic of the deletion review you referenced. -- Monty845 02:42, 18 April 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.

Really? Oh, in that case, it could probably count as house-keeping. Gracenotes ^T § 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User:Samuella99/Beyonce 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 userfied by Uncle G (talk · contribs) to User:Samuella99/Beyonce. Gracenotes ^T § 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is blank. — Eduemoni 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blanked by author WP:CSD#G7. –Pomte 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second speedy deletion... uh... and hold a seminar on anti-template admin bias... Gracenotes ^T § 19:14, 18 April 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.

Template:ORBCOTW 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 withdrawn by nominator, keep Gracenotes^T § 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template's name is misleading. It claims to be the collaboration of the week, but the article listed therein hasn't changed since last November. When I tried to change it BOLDly, I was reverted by an insider at WikiProject Judaism. Basically, if it isn't the collaboration of the week, or even of the month, don't call it that. As a counterargument, editing at the currently listed article has been active. I am also listing the associated template:

is the project even active? --Shuli 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) :::The project is currently experiencing a lull because the editors who most active study in Yeshiva and therefore are not able t edit until the off-season, at which point, I'm sure the project will be revived. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without further explanation, template does not seem to be useful. Oddly, it show up in a ton of transclusions under "What links here". I may be confused on its usefulness. Hit my talk page if you figure out any significance to the transclusions. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to project space~~ and remove transclusions until it can be revived. Gracenotes^T § 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, keep as it is, because for some reason, COTW messages reside in the template namespace (not that they're not appropriate there, but a WikiProject subpage is better, in my opinion.) Remove template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Todo, from which most of the transclusions come. Gracenotes ^T § 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise technically so that there are no transclusions. This template was used when Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week was very active. Many editors were involved at the time. But after User:Nesher (its creator [1]) and a couple of others checked out it has been far less active. But in any case, how can there be a proposal to "delete" a template if it's part of still extant, albeit presently dormant, Wikiproject? Thus as long as Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week (also created by Nesher (talk · contribs) [2]) is with us and is "on the books" so does this template which is an inherent part of it need to remain (but someone with technical expertise should fix up the technical problems relating to the many transclusions.) IZAK 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it will be needed in due course.--Runcorn 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor clarification: delete {{ORBCOTW article}}, because a template is not needed for that. I have substituted it into the template. Gracenotes ^T § 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak. I'm also uncomfortable with the language "an insider at WikiProject Judaism" - I'm not sure how that's relevant, and it implies a homogeneity of behaviour and opinion within the project that certainly doesn't exist. Daniel^C/_T+ 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WikiProject involved, while currently dormant, was useful when it was active and may become active again as new users join and as existing users find more free time after the Yeshiva academic term ends. If the project is kept, its template should be as well. If it continues to remain dormant for a year or so, we can revisit whether to keep the whole WikiProject. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination Considering everything, there's no good reason to delete. I'll ask someone who knows how to close this discussion. YechielMan 06:21, 22 April 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.

Template:FF jobs 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not noteworthy; it links only to sections of one article. It doesn't seem used much either. It should be deleted. — Kariteh 10:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once the Final Fantasy character classes article was created and all of the separate articles in this template merged into it, this template became useless. --PresN 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This FF template shouldn't be used on general articles such as Monk (character class). See also works to link the other articles in Category:Final Fantasy character classes. –Pomte 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — only one article on FF character classes now, so template is useless. — Deckill er 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Runcorn 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 03:22, 20 April 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.

Template:Continuumowns 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A combined description and copyright tag, was only used for one image wich I substed it into. Not usefull for anyting else, so delete. Sherool (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom. Delete. --Iamunknown 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like it could be a useful template if properly included in policy pages. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Continuum/Subspace does own, but this template does not. TonyTheTiger: What policy page? Just substitute it. –Pomte 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed in the template namespace, specific. Gracenotes ^T § 00:29, 18 April 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.

Template:MaineBasketballCoach 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this template when cleaning up some articles, it is only used in one article and that is John Giannini. It was created 14 days ago and all the links are red apart from one, due to lack of usefulness and the fact its orphaned and no actual existing articles linking their are thought it's more appropriate here. — Telly addict 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there aren't any linked other articles at this time, the subjects are notable as head coaches of a Division I basketball program (which is not the case for {{SouthwestMinnesotaStateBasketballCoach}}, which I nominated below), so the template serves to help encourage the creation of these articles. --fuzzy510 16:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fuzzy510 - D-I head coaches are notable subjects and this template should encourage stub creation. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreate when there are actually links to populate it with. Peter ^Isotalo 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peter. There is no article, I notice, on Penn State coach Jerry Dunn, though he was the coach immediately before this last one. It's very unlikely those article will be created. Part Deux 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So wait, because an article for a coach completely unrelated to this discussion wasn't created, this template should go? I'm lost. And I would respectfully disagree that it's unlikely these articles will be created, seeing as how it falls under WikiProject College basketball would likely be the driving force behind that, and we've only just begun recently. --fuzzy510 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now with no prejudice against recreating it when the other articles are created and become substantial. Axem Titanium 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will vote to stay execution for a new template in a new project for a productive editor. If no redlinks are removed in 6 months renominate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep College basketball coach templates like that are standard for D1 programs. I personally am working on college coach articles as my current project on Wikipedia and others are as well; we're filling in red links on these templates all the time. matt91486 19:54, 20 April 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.

Template:Infobox City Serbia4 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-use template for Belgrade. It was replaced. — MJCdetroit 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/deprecated by {{Infobox City}}. Reverted by an anon at Belgrade, which I have undone. –Pomte 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to transclude again with reason "until the infoboxes on cities like Berlin, Munich, Frankfurt, etc are changed, this one will stay unique." I guess someone will have to work on those cities' infoboxes as well. –Pomte 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Munich and Frankfurt use {{Infobox German Location}}, specifically designed for copying citydata over from the German wiki. Since Berlin is not only a city but a state of Germany, it should use {{Infobox German Bundesland}}, which is also designed for city-states of Germany (the other one's being Hamburg and Bremen - 52 Pickup 07:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that {{Infobox Serbian City}} would work out for Belgrade and other Serbian cities, compared to this template or {{Infobox City}}. Novi Sad uses the template. --Krytan 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Infobox Serbian City is up for TfD on the April 18th TfDs and Novi Sad does not use that infobox anymore. —MJCdetroit 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough :) --Krytan 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it has not been replaced. I didn't see any consensus for the new template to be used for all cities either.--Methodius 00:53, 20 April 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.

Template:Infobox District TR 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not link to any pages. {{Infobox Settlement}} can be used for this if needed. MJCdetroit 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/deprecated by {{Infobox City}}. –Pomte 21:37, 17 April 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.

Template:Infobox City Dotmap 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use template. This template looks like it was created to supplied an xy dot map back when infobox city (aka infobox settlement) did not. Infobox Settlement now has an xy dot map and works well. — MJCdetroit 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/deprecated by {{Infobox City}}. –Pomte 21:37, 17 April 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.

Template:Infobox Town NY 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template was only used on 5 articles. It has been replaced with the better suited {{Infobox Settlement}}. It looks as if this template was created around a custom x y dot mapping template ({{GBNewYorkState}}) but Infobox Settlement has since implemented an xy dot map. Therefore this template is no longer needed and also there were some of the parameters that did not seem to work. — MJCdetroit 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/deprecated by {{Infobox City}}. –Pomte 21:37, 17 April 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.

Template:Bus 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A photo of a bus" is neither a copyright status nor a license nor a Wikipedia:Non-free content claim. I don't know why this was created, but it isn't used anywhere as of this nomination, and I cannot think of a good use for it. If this was meant for bus lines logos, {{logo}} should be fine for that. Jkelly 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there's no reason a photo of a bus should be treated differently than a photo of any other vehicle. Standard licensing templates should be fine. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need to have some kind of process for reviewing these things or something. --BigDT (416) 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they are being reviewed at Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates - cohesion 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, there are no special copyright rules regarding buses. --Cyde Weys 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and it is unused in any case. --Gmaxwell 03:09, 24 April 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.