Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

June 29 edit

Template:Moonbase Alpha 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. Mike Peel 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not currently used, and appears to have been taken out of the target article sometime in May. It appears it was initially designed for a series of articles regarding the subject of Moonbase Alpha, but all links were changed to redirects back to the main article. Now serves no purpose. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE - I was a contributor to the seperate articles, name Nuclear Disposal Areas 1 and 2, Main Mission and Command Center. However, it was decided that the Moonbase Alpha articles should be merged. Douglasnicol 18:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused template per above. Carlosguitar 14:20, 6 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:APE 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. matt br 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Consists only of "Ape1.JPG". The same user that created this template uploaded File:Ape1.JPG, which has since been deleted. Delete Mike Peel 21:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that might qualify for speedy deletion--VectorPotential^Talk 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acually, it does not qualify for speedy deletion (and very very few templates do). This seems to be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Perspective Entertainment since the deleted image is a logo of some kind. Pascal.Tesson 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case delete: template has no content other than the words "Ape1.jpg"--VectorPotential^Talk 10:59, 6 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:ANTfold 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. IronGargoyle 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Consists only of a pair of red links to an non-existing (and never existing) article and image. Delete Mike Peel 21:22, 29 June 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:Wallace Collection Inventory 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 delete. Mike Peel 05:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox that isn't a navbox, used only in one article. -- Eyrian 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not even sure if it should be substed or just discarded. Shalom ^Hello 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What! No justification to remove this whatsoever. This is particular to the Wallace Collection, doesn't need to included anywhere else. So it shall remain. ImperialCollegeGrad 10:46, 8 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:SG-1 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 all. IronGargoyle 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant/bulky template with very little practical use. Maelwys 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also including in this nomination are:

Since they are all created for the express purpose of being transcluded into the master template above. --Maelwys 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not very useful, and used only at the bottom of SG-1 (and even there, by default it's hidden). The information contained in it would be far more useful as text; trying to display it in a timeline (as this template does) doesn't work that well. Mike Peel 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They certainly look nice and seem like a good idea at first, but they are too confusing and way too big to be practical. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's only used on one page, so why have it as a template? --Tango 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Too bulky to be practical. Spazure 05:41, 6 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:Sth 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 Relocated to WP:RfD. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 10. Mike Peel 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect to {{Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading)}}. VectorPotential^Talk 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close, RFD. --Random832 21:53, 7 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:Sbx 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 Relocated to WP:RfD. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 10. Mike Peel 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect to {{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}. VectorPotential^Talk 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it's hard to remember the whole title when restoring the header manually if someone else deleted it. Also, belongs on RFD, not here, so speedy close --Random832 21:52, 7 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:2008 UEFA Euro qualifying Group A small 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. matt br 18:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and similar templates (see also: Group B, Group C, Group D, Group E, Group F and Group G) are completely redundant on the count that they have been replaced by better, more complex versions, and thus have long been orphaned. — Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes do remove these, I made them before the group templates with options for small/medium/large layouts where added, these are unnecessary now. ^CHANDLER 17:33, 29 June 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:Seebjaodn 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! 08:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template, inviting the reader to see content in bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, is being used in the main article namespace on two articles. Per WP:ASR it's a bad thing, and the essay WP:BEANS would suggest that this only encourages vandalism - I still maintain that Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is a mere euphemism for "featured vandalism" and if not for tradition, it would not survive today. Unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Delete. — h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this would be like having a sisterbox to Uncyclopedia, something not really appropriate in a serious encyclopedia. --ais523 16:39, 29 June 2007 (U T C)
Delete not appropriate for the mainspace. -N 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or subst per above comments --Andersmusician VOTE 04:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. matt br 15:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed my mind, this can't be used on articles, it's not project scope--Andersmusician VOTE 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN - Gracenotes^T § 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we realy want to link from encyclopedic article to nonsenses? I don't. --Li-sung 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second...when was BJAODN recreated? After all that brouhaha, it comes quietly back to life...of course, delete because it does not inform the article. Maybe put it on the talk page instead. Shalom ^Hello 19:01, 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:Concerts 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! 08:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing helpful in an encyclopaedic context.

First, by a narrower definition, the template tells us nothing but only which singers ever began a concert series in December and ended it in January. What's so special about that? It's not an award, not a prize, not an event, but merely a result of booking a cross-year schedule of the concert hall successfully.

Second, by a broader definition, any singer can qualify into this template by simply holding concert series in two different years and declaring that they are in Part-I-Part-II series. (For example, Denise Ho, who is now in the template list, held a series in Sept 2006 and a 2nd part in Jan 2007 - separated by 3 months!).

Last but not least, naming the template "Concerts" would be too general - and quite boastful - because it is merely talking about "Hong Kong singers to hold a series of cross-year concerts" !!

-- supernorton 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial coincidental relationship. matt br 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The significance of any artist holding a series of concerts which begins in one year and ends in the next is completely lost on me, and the talk page is no help. --Metropolitan90 02:55, 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:Supreme commander series 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! 08:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with two items, unlikely to be expanded Eyrian 08:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I did not create this template for expansion but for easy use. --SkyWalker 09:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the series ever gets bigger, then it might be feasible.

Tabanger 09:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & delete just wait until you have more links, then a template would be appropiate --Andersmusician VOTE 04:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand it is for easy use, but they are internally linked to each other, so a template really isn't needed. When there is three or more and probably a "series" article, then go for it. For now I'd keep the text in a safe place until the need arises.--Clyde (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note: I am the principal author of the Supreme Commander article. Delete. Only two links, seems to exist to increase the visibility of the second article. --User:Krator (t c) 16:08, 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:Help 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 Quote all current uses and redirect to Template:helpme. Mike Peel 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is apparently no longer used for its original function, to advertise an "on duty" help Wikipedian. Instead it appears to be transcluded in hundreds of pages, mostly by clueless people trying to ask for help. Instead of a straight deletion, I believe every previous use should be subst'd (or preferably removed) and then the template redirected to helpme, where if people use it to ask for help they'll actually get it. — -N 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea, turn every previous use into {{tl|help}}. -N 02:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per logic of nominator. Either that, or we could move the template currently at {{helpme}} to {{help}}, since in a way, it is a more intuitive and straight-forward name. Does anyone have an opinion on this latter course of action? Gracenotes^T § 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per GraceNotes. Switching helpme and help doesn't seem like a bad idea, I agree that {{help}} is more straightforward and intuitive than {{helpme}}. In any case, the current {{help}} is useless and confuses people Henrik 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote all uses using {{tl}} and redirect to {{helpme}}. Helpme could do with as many redirects as possible from appropriate names. The name {{helpme}} itself ends up at is pretty irrelevant as we're hardly going to go around bypassing redirects to it! ({{help}} is less likely to be misremembered or mistyped by new users, though, so it would make sense that it would be the name given in the welcome messages.) --ais523 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I was informed of this TfD by a message by User:Gracenotes on Wikipedia talk:Help desk. --ais523 15:28, 29 June 2007 (U T C)
  - Oops, you caught me canvassing. I really, really want to get this template deleted! (Cough, cough.) ;] Or rather, It made sense to inform people who tend to deal with the template the most (not including over-enthustiastic newbies) about the debate. Now, the name, {{help}} or {{helpme}}, is not relevant to what is transcluded, but in my opinion it is best to be consistent with given names and actual names, especially since there's no reason a switch can't be done. Gracenotes^T § 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that post was a problem or broke canvassing rules, but I may as well mention it to avoid any appearance of impropriety. And I agree that the name in the help messages should match the name in the templates. (Of course, the helpme variants should definitely be retained as redirects.) --ais523 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      - This template appears to have been originally intended for the help desk so informing them is appropriate. -N 19:02, 29 June 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:O 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 marked as WP:CSD#G2, speedily deleted by DGG (talk · contribs). Gracenotes^T § 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful at all. — Ysangkok 18:58, 29 June 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.