Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 28

< November 27	November 29 >

November 28 edit

Template:Colour-box disambig 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(Говорить!) 03:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are only for listing ambiguous possibilities, not for free-association. WP:MOSDAB#The "See also" section lists what sort of things should go in a disambiguation's See-also section, and this doesn't fit the letter or spirit of any of them. — 76.16.92.56 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and it is pointless MrKIA11 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "pointless" is putting it mildly. --Russ (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as -why? just why? SkierRMH (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 20:40, 29 November 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:Doom-monster 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(Говорить!) 03:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, as Doom monsters aren't notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enemies in Doom. Pagra shtak 21:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused after articles were deemed non-notable. SkierRMH (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 20:40, 29 November 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 czech village 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. mikeshk 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used on Czech settlement articles (Template:Geobox is used instead) mikeshk (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is better to use a standardized infobox like Geobox instead of ones like Infobox czech village. —MJCdetroit (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused and superceeded by {{Infobox Settlement}} and {{Geobox}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek 14:37, 30 November 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:Advert1/doc 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(Говорить!) 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting from MfD; original discussion as follows. — 12 Noon 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template has been superseded by (and redirected to) Template:uw-advert1. No need for old documentation page. Papa November (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:uw-spam1/doc. Delete. As nominator said, there's no point in documenting a template that no longer exists. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Added the actual template for the "doc" - template is now redirect. In last form(s) was moving toward becoming redundant to {{uw-spam1}}. SkierRMH (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the rest of the documentation from the same series. The same arguments apply (just substitute the appropriate number at the end) Papa November (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, some users still prefer to use these templates over the newer ones. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 5 December 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 PT 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(Говорить!) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Underdeveloped and only used on few pages. It has been standardized to Infobox Settlement. The talk page, doc page and redirects should also be deleted. — MJCdetroit (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superseded by Infobox Settlement. SkierRMH (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unused template that has been superseded by {{Infobox Settlement}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek 14:43, 30 November 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:Rangers f.c. reserve squad 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(Говорить!) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These players are reserve squad members rather than first-team squad members. Articles should not be created about them and so it follows that neither should there be a nav template for the articles. See previous discussions - Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_16#Template:Chelsea_F.C._Reserves_squad and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3#Template:Arsenal_F.C._Reserves_Squad. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous precedent as detailed in nom. – Pee Jay 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and past precedent; deletion of articles it links to should also be considered, on a case-by-case basis. Qwghlm (talk) 23:22, 4 December 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.

Redundant subtemplates of {{Unit of length}}, {{Scinote}} & {{Enginote}} 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 Speedy delete under G7. MJCdetroit (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign of these three templates has made the following subtemplates redundant.

J ɪ m p 08:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G7 (good faith author requested delete). —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Scriptum: In fact, I'll start deleting some of them but I may not get through all of them. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:17, 28 November 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:User Krypto: The Superdog 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uses non-free image for template use in user space. WebHamster 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the outcome should be to remove the image but keep the template. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete the image as copyvio. – Pee Jay 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace, remove non-free image. Charon X/talk 16:14, 29 November 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:University of Virginia 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(Говорить!) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little to no progress has been made with the list of things wrong that Gene Nygaard pointed out on the talk page. The template is huge and almost entirely worthless and non-notable, and the one article that he mentions that 70-odd links and only one not from this template now has 500 links from the template. — 204.111.165.239 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A major university, and most of the articles are significant. I am however not happy about including the organisations in which the university is a member, but I'll suggest that as an editing question. Most universities have such a template, or ought to. The problems haven't been worked on, but that doesn't mean they can't be. DGG (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. WP is better off with it than without it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep May need clean-up, but definitely not worthy of deletion. Just because a template is large does not mean it is unnecessary. Jazznutuva (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! Uris 06:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and clean up When I saw this, I figured whom ever put this here was either a militant Virginia Tech fan, or just crazy. Jsonitsac 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor editing isn't a reason for deletion, its a reason to improve today, or tomorrow, or next year. Mbisanz 09:24, 3 December 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.