Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 18

< April 17	April 19 >

April 18 edit

Template:Irish county crest 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) 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dead template. Hasn't been used, was created in 2005 probably as an edit test and, after 1 and a half years, is still unfinished. — Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per nom. —MJCdetroit 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never going to be used. Jmlk17 00:13, 23 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 Tajikistan 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) 02:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant with {{Infobox Town}} / {{Infobox Settlement}} — MJCdetroit 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/redundant to {{Infobox City}}. –Pomte 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another redundant infobox. Gracenotes ^T § 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused/redundant. feydey 12:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. General infoboxes for objects in a similar class are preferable to ones that are restricted in scope. -- Black Falcon 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep please add these to the list: Template:Infobox German Location, Template:Infobox Town DE Lord _Eru _(Cont) 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are widely transcluded and will need to be replaced first. –Pomte 04:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe that Infobox German Location was created to replace Infobox Town DE and to import data from the German wikipedia, hense all those German language parameters.—MJCdetroit 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant; no need to add clutter. Jmlk17 00:14, 23 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:ASEAN table 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 subst and deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template reworked and moved to ASEAN. No more necessary. — Guilherme Paula 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still being used at ASEAN Free Trade Area. Should be converted to {{Infobox Organization}} or some suitable template and then deleted. –Pomte 23:57, 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:WalesinUK 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) 02:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is just a basic copy of Template:UKFormation with one minor difference . — Barryob Vigeur de dessus 10:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 13:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an obvious copy/paste job. Jmlk17 19:16, 19 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 Female Model Bio 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 // Pilot guy radar contact 12:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can be replaced with {{Infobox Model}}, which is older and has more parameters. Kelvinc 09:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. {{Infobox Model}} is much more preferred. Jmlk17 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While age has nothing to do with it, I agree with the proposal. I replaced the infobox on the Twiggy article and everything seems to be transferrable. I believe I created the infobox because there was some key param (or params) missing from other infoboxes at the time. I will help with swapping the infoboxes over. --Mal 22:26, 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:bg-Talisman 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) 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navigation template; all its links point back to the same article Percy Snoodle 08:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, yeah, now that you merged all the info from those separate articles back into the main article. You didn't even discuss the merge. You just proposed it and then did it. Please discuss here. This template will eventually be expanded with the information from the forthcoming 4th edition. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:13, 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:ADHS 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) 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with templates that list state highways (many of which have been deleted; can someone link to these deletion discussions?), this is redundant with the link and browse in the infobox. NE2 06:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You make a valid point, but I think this is more analogous to Interstate and U.S. highways (both of which use templates) than it is to state highways. I'm not particularly happy with the way the browsing is implemented here, and think it would be better served by something like Interstate 87, which browses New York numbered highways in the infobox, and has {{Interstates}} at the bottom. (For example, Corridor X-1 should browse Alabama state routes in the infobox, and have this template at the bottom.) -- NORTH ^talk 17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, here are links to those discussions, but like I said, I don't think they're entirely valid precedent: Oregon, Hawaii, West Virginia, Ohio. (There may be more.) -- NORTH ^talk 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with North. Even if it does duplicate the "browse" part of the infobox it doesn't mean that the template has been preempted. Infact the template is a more effective navigational tool IMHO. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. It is a good navigational tool. Jmlk17 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Jmlk17. Tim Q. Wells 03:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and replace the infobox browsing for the ADHS with this template. Comparing this template to the clunky templates that once held state highway systems seems like a non sequitur to me. This template encompasses a system that is some 20-odd highways big - vastly different from a 200-highway state highway system. As such, I believe that this footer template handles the browsing better than the standard state highway browse. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:48, 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.