Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

September 4 edit

Template:Guernsey political parties 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 no consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template reads "There are no political parties in the Guernsey" This is not a template but a notice. The template is not used on Guernsey political parties articles. C mon 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a template that can be used in the Politics of Guernsey article, and also in an overview article of political parties in Europe. I plan to make such an article. Electionworld Talk? 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Electionworld. —Nightstallion 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Shalom ^Hello 14:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this template has no substantial information in it except for the notice that actually nullifies its existence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebskii (talk • contribs)
Delete Seems like a waste of space to me. It could almost be a satirical joke, except it appears the author was serious. I don't mean to offend the author, but I think it's ridiculous. Isaac Pankonin 06:51, 10 September 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 uby 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 keep. — Malcolm (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubykh is an extinct language. You can't have it as your native language. —- Prince Kassad 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this is of course true, it would create a gap in the Babel box templates for Ubykh, the "native speaker" template could thus never be used. I also wonder: I Ubykh the only extinct language with a "native speaker" template? What about Classical Greek, Latin, Sumerian, Old English, Middle English, Classical Chinese...? Do they all have such a gap? — N-true 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:User la, Template:User sux, Template:User grc, Template:User ang,... Rather surprising. I don't get the point of an extinct language having a native speaker template since it's impossible to reach that status, thus these templates merely serve as a cheap lie detector (I don't think gaps will be a problem, it's handled in other Wikipedias just fine) -- Prince Kassad 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Irish and latin are extinct languages--Pheonix15 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the most weird arguments I've ever heard. Because Latin and Irish are extinct (actually, Irish is not extinct), this gets to be kept? -- Prince Kassad 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really--the editor is citing precedent, although in this case I'd say that Latin and Irish are still quite noteworthy tongues in and of their own right.IL-Kuma 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I created the userbox being discussed, it's hardly fair to have me comment on whether it should be kept or not. But since you asked for my opinion, I'll give it to you: Keep, for two reasons: (1) as N-true points out, other extinct languages also have the possibility of listing them as one's native language, and when I created the userboxes I created them with the interests of uniformity in mind; and (2) just because the language is extinct doesn't mean it will necessarily remain so. Witness Hebrew. Thefamouseccles 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If nobody uses them, but they're there to complete the Babel box sequence, they're not harming anyone. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:27, 12 September 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:Lotte 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 keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links in this template were dead, and the subject is better covered by the existing category. — 221.89.167.148 15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redlinks cleaned up. Lotte is a major international corporation with various notable subsidiaries, far smaller outfits in the western world have templates. Deiz talk 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deiz clean up. Carlosguitar 22:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deiz. Categories and templates are not mutually exclusive, and the former is rarely noticed. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:53, 9 September 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:Notfinished 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 creator. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is currently being created. It is consequently subject to major change or alteration, or complete reconstruction."

This is a wiki. The above statement is true of every one of the 60,591,929 pages we have, so if we use it anywhere, we should be using it everywhere. Essentially, it says nothing useful and is pointless -- 217.42.77.246 12:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are more several appropriate maintenance

template already at our disposal. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inuse is appropriate when articles are undergoing large revisions, this template isn't needed. Dave101→talk 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see utility for this template like {{Inuse}}. Carlosguitar 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen other templates, that look kind of similarly, but work better. --Yamakiri 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 217.42.77.246 — Jack · talk · 04:17, Wednesday, 5 September 2007
Comment from creator - I see the point of the people here. There is no reason for this to go on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:45, 7 September 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 tram 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 per WP:CSD#G7. — Malcolm (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is empty, has no purpose, is not in use and links to a third party template not created. No documentation on its purpose is included. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's cause im still making it. To you set out to get rid of anything of mine that you don't like, or just AfD anything that someone is working on. Some people have lives, and can;t spend 24/7 on WP. Bluegoblin 7 10:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P.S. Things will start to appear, so please get rid of the AfD. If it's not up to your standards in one week, please Speedy Delete it. Bluegoblin 7 10:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Work in progress should not be performed on a teplate page but on your own space as you've been informed on Template talk:Infobox tram. As it stands the template remains a nonsense page with no content and no purpose. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:03, 10 September 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.

Ref X 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. — Malcolm (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine pointlessly simplistic templates. Their limited function could easily be carried out in a far more effective and specialised manner without the use of these templates. — Jack · talk · 02:58, Tuesday, 4 September 2007

Comment - Also, {{note}} meets this function infinitely better (...get the pun?) — Jack · talk · 03:12, Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Delete the ref tag and note template are a whole lot better. Yes, we get you're pun, but it took a minute. --Yamakiri 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all... the ref and note templates are more sophisticated in function. Gracenotes^T § 00:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... these templates are redundant with ref and note tags. --RebSkii 16:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... after cleaning up the the articles where these are found. --Howard the Duck 12:13, 10 September 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:Dab current 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. — Malcolm (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparsely used template that does nothing that {{current-related}} or {{wikinews}} don't do better. — Jack · talk · 02:08, Tuesday, 4 September 2007

Delete or redirect; {{current-related}} is more widely transcluded, and the two are basically redundant. Gracenotes^T § 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shalom ^Hello 14:37, 7 September 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 Weather wrapped 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. — Malcolm (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created to force a wrap to {{Infobox Weather}}. If a forced wrap was needed for infobox weather, then it should have been discussed there instead of creating a new template. Redundant to Infobox Weather and unused. — MJCdetroit 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an editor feels the need to wrap {{Infobox Weather}} then Template:Infobox Weather wrapped (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a suitable alternative. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant template. If the function of this template is deemed important and/or necessary through discussion, Infobox Weather should be modified. VerruckteDan 13:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as {{Infobox weather}} can be modified to accept an optional wrap parameter. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:30, 12 September 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.