Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 1

< June 30	July 2 >

July 1 edit

Template:Metz infobox 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! 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page Metz that was the only that used this template now uses Template:French commune. — Danh 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one-use infobox templates are discouraged, because entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Gracenotes^T § 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only pages that link to it are TfD pages. Giggy _U^CP 05:10, 9 July 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:Aircraft image 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 deleted by FisherQueen. MER-C 09:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Consists of the address of an image on someone's HD. Useless. Delete — Mike Peel 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, Jza84 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be an experiment. Original author is only editor and hasn't touched it for 3 months. Would this qualify for speedy deletion???? Pit-yacker 22:34, 1 July 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:Cornwallparish 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! 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, superceded by Template:Infobox UK place. — Jza84 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Pit-yacker 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. —MJCdetroit 22:59, 1 July 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:Defunct Hockey Team 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 speedily deleted per author request (CSD G7). --ais523 09:52, 2 July 2007 (U T C)

Template no longer used in any articles. All previous transclusions replaced by Template:Pro hockey team — Flibirigit 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it no longer has a purpose. GoodDay 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, no longer needed, possible speedy delete because I created it and it's no longer needed. — Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 23:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Salisbury Steak. --Djsasso 01:22, 2 July 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:AFL Ladder 2007 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! 06:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Consists only of an image, which also isn't used anywhere. Delete. — Mike Peel 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If it is needed anywhere the image should be called directly from the article. Pit-yacker 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Jza84 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Deelete: This is wikipedia, not commons. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Orphaned, pointless template. Giggy _U^CP 05:11, 9 July 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:Advertising-section 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! 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template reads "Some content of this section is inserted as part of a business arrangement of the Wikimedia Foundation. Normal Wikipedia editing processes and standards may not apply. Please view the article's talk page for clarification." Such a disclaimer should never need to be used on Wikipedia. Delete Mike Peel 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whilst carrying adverts is one thing, if advertising is allowed to interfere with the editorial process of the project we might as well all pack up and go home as any chance of objectivity will go out of the window. Pit-yacker 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Jza84 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, housekeeping: its non-section counterpart was deleted in an early 2006 TfD. Gracenotes^T § 17:18, 2 July 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:Cornwallsettlement 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! 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused and long superceded by Template:Infobox UK place. — Jza84 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Template is unused, redundant and obsolete. Pit-yacker 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now template in use -Jza84 has been removing from articles during this debate, which I believe to be improper. DuncanHill 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - discussion took place on Template talk:Infobox UK place talk place. Template was transcluded on two articles; I converted them, then listed the template for deletion per normal procedure. Jza84 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - superseded and improved upon by Template:Infobox UK place. — mholland (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am new to TfD debates, but it strikes me as odd (to say the least) for a proposer to orphan a template and then give 'unused' as one of the reasons for deletion. Editors watching the articles in which the template was used are deprived of the opportunity of commenting before its removal. I believe it is good practice to inform the good-faith creator of the template, which was also not done as far as I can see. DuncanHill 21:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The creator took part in the discussion to list it for deletion(!). Editors who use this are invited here to comment before it's potential removal. Jza84 21:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to reply This template was not mentioned in that debate until today, Mammal4 (the creator) took part in that discussion on the 21st Jun. As I said, I don't think it is proper to orphan a template and then say "unused" as a reason for deletion. The guidelins seem to me to suggest that it is unusual too. DuncanHill 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Reply to reply: This template was first mentioned in that dicussion on the 3rd June. Pit-yacker 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to DuncanHill): Regardless, I'm not sure how this helps - the template was posted with a comment on the 4th of June for users to pass comment on its merge/conversion. This infobox has a much more primitive functionality, limited flexibility, is highly localised, and clearly superceded by the UK wide version (which has thousands of transculsions from Orkney to Corwall, from wards to hamlets to cities). If you have concerns that this template is somehow better than the UK version, or have concerns about content or context, please feel free to raise them; so far you have not. Jza84 22:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply My concerns are that you claimed the template was unused when it was still in use. See my original comment. DuncanHill 13:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Template unused and superceded by a much better one. DDStretch (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. —MJCdetroit 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not needed. G-Man * 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Joowwww 13:20, 3 July 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:Wizards of Waverly Place 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! 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused and contains no data, appears to be a test. — TAnthony 04:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Jza84 21:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unused and incomplete. After over 1 month there appears to be no intention to do anything with it. Pit-yacker 22:36, 1 July 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:Village of the Faroe Islands 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! 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was used on only 4 articles; of which one was a town (not a village). There wasn't really any need for this template. It was easily replaced with the more flexible {{Infobox Settlement}}. — MJCdetroit 04:50, 1 July 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.