Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27 edit

Template:People of the Three Kingdoms 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination for deletion, the previous discussion is here. Since then, the template has split into four templates as discussed in the WikiProject Three Kingdoms, making this one redundant, thus I am nominating it for deletion. — _dk (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete about time. Suredeath (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The replacement templates are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Three Kingdoms#Templates, redux. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once all mainspace articles have been updated to use the new split templates. Happy‑melon 11:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant at this point. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I 100% agree with the deletion, good job with the smaller templates by the way dk. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (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 Football All-Ireland 3 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated by {{Infobox Football All-Ireland}}. Happy‑melon 11:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2008 (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 Football All-Ireland 2 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deprecated by {{Infobox Football All-Ireland}}. Happy‑melon 11:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; deprecated. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2008 (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:Anarchist Thinkers 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this template for deletion for the following reasons:

It was created over 3 years ago and is not used on any articles.
There is no possible non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion.
As anarchism is a highly contentious subject on Wikipedia (see Talk:Anarchism archives), by asserting a canonical set of thinkers this template is divisive and inflammatory.. Skomorokh ^confer 13:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - what are you guys thinking? These are some of the most notable anarchist thinkers. If you think Kropotkin, Chomsky, Proudhon, and Bakunin are somehow not "notable", then you need to do some reading! There is no "canonical" set, however, these are amongst the most famous - although I would question Goldman and Bookchin's inclusion.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's point precisely - it is impossible to come up with an objective criterion to determine whether an anarchist thinker should be included in this template. This TfD has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the people listed on the template, only the template itself as a means of grouping them. If John Smith were a real person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, who had once been quoted by a reliable source describing himself as "an anarchist thinker", why should he not be included on this template? Happy‑melon 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly, some anarchists are notably more prominent than others, but I would have come up with a different list. The lack of transclusion is fairly good evidence that there hasn't been a demand for this in its present form, and attempting to modify it would just push people into bringing out the knives. Moreover, Category:Anarchists exists and is sufficient to the purpose of navigation. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and, "Thinkers"? As opposed to Anarchist non-Thinkers? Murderbike (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, using merely a select representation to begin with is frivilous and furthermore it is a useless template, delete per nom. Lord Metroid (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contentious, frivolous, undesired, vague, unnecessary: all of this and more. It was an unfortunate idea on many levels. Delete per nomination.--Cast (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Murderbike. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject the compulsory Wiki government - alert all who support its elimination and follow only the central Wiki doctrine - reject all temporary or permanent authority. Oh, yes, delete it, no clear inclusion criteria. SkierRMH (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (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:Multi banners 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete repetition of Template:Portal. english wikipedia is not a french wikipedia.Vide453435 (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once all instances have been converted to {{portal}}. Happy‑melon 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The banner is usefulle to use multi banners like {{portal United States}} and {{portal energy}} on a graphic same line. Otherwise, with these last templates it's possible (with the use of a bot) to count the number of pages that have the portal link and to indicate it on the top of the related portal page (this is yet not possible with the simple use of {{portal}}). Jamcib (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've always prefered EN WP's style to FR's in this regard. We don't need this. Kevlar67 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Happy-M. SkierRMH (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (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:May 29 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G6 (housekeeping). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expands to 'May 29th'. Should be deleted as we don't use ordinals and it prevents magical formatting by linking. It is also orphaned. matt br 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - no one would deny this is uncontroversial housekeeping. Happy‑melon 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as housekeeping. Not only is this the wrong date style, it's two characters longer than the unformatted text it generates, which makes it entirely useless. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2008 (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.

Politician fair-use templates 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Useless non-free template. It is used only on two pages. Alex Spade (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I'd like to see some explanation of exactly why this and the other "X-politician" templates nominated with it are "useless". They all seem, to me anyway, to have perfectly legitimate uses on the images to which each template applies.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not special necessity in them. They are offered for deletion because it can be simple replaced by {{fairusein}} with respective category(ies) and FU-rationales. The many of little used fair use (non free) templates was early deleted in the context of project Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates. They are undeleted remains. Alex Spade (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it is possible to unite all Template:XYZ-politician-photo in Template:Politician-photo as it was done with over group of non-free templates, as for example it was united the Template:Radiologo, Template:Logo, Template:Sports-logo and some others in Template:Non-free logo. The such large nomenclature of little used non free templates is useless. Alex Spade (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this template with the other X-politician templates into {{Non-free politician photo}}, as suggested above (but to comply with WP:NFC/T. Happy‑melon 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing inherently fair-use about pictures of politicians from India. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Canada-politician-photo}} and {{Sri-Lanka-politician-photo}} were co-nominated at this point. Happy‑melon 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that these three templates, which appear to indicate similar licensing states, be merged into {{Non-free politician photo}}. There is no reason to have separate templates for each country (except for {{Dutch-politician-photo}} which has different licensing claims), and these templates must at the very least be renamed to comply with WP:NFC/T. Happy‑melon 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are similar, but the copyright ownership is different. Will this merged template have a parameter to display the respective owner? –Pomte 03:38, 4 February 2008 (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:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. jj137 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was a poorly implemented template that was standardized to {{Infobox Settlement}} —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant template Green Giant (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Happy‑melon 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2008 (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:Countries and territories of Northern America 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete both. нмŵוτн τ 19:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This practically duplicates Template:Countries of North America — Joeldl (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This template is linked to Template:Countries and territories of Middle America, which also duplicates Template:Countries of North America, if one is deleted, the other should be deleted too. JC 17:36, 26 January 2008 (PST)
- I agree. Joeldl (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both {{Countries and territories of Northern America}} and {{Countries and territories of Middle America}} and replace both with {{Countries of North America}}. Happy‑melon 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Users of Template:Countries and territories of Middle America have not yet been notified that this debate is taking place. As of now, that template is edit protected, so it is impossible to place any kind of warning template there. I have just mentioned the debate on the talk page and made a request for an inline "considered for deletion" template to be added to it. This discussion should be left open for a while longer than normal to leave time for them to be notified. Joeldl (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dealt with. I'd recommend restarting the timer on this discussion now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. JC 07:13, 28 January 2008 (PST)
Delete pretty much for the same reasons everyone gave above. Alex C. ^{( Talk? )} 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant as shown above. SkierRMH (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and confusing. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2008 (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.