Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18[edit]

Template:Should block[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. Kimchi.sg 16:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creates a category essentially never checked by admins (I currently see a template from 3 days ago under the cat); any obvious examples should just be reported to AIV, and for non-obvious examples this template could be rude; prose should be used, and it should be up to the admin at afd. --Patstuart^talk|edits 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Note: if this is deleted, we should delete Category:Wikipedia:Usernames that should be blocked as well. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The template doesn't include things into the category, nor does the category exist. Or did you just mean removing the names? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- he he - you were too quick on the response - I tried to revert myself. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Never ever make a template telling admins that they must block someone. Ever. I can't emphasize my opinion on that enough. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horrible idea that will only lead to trolling. Can this be speedied or snowballed? Koweja 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above concerns. — Seadog^Talk 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overwhelmingly likely to be abused, and terminally out-of-process. Nothing this could accomplish is not done better by RFC or AN. Serpent's Choice 07:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. There already is a template for this that avoids the inappropriate terminology of this one - Template:Username-Warn. StoptheDatabaseState 12:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:43, 20 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Signature[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. Kimchi.sg 16:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two problems. One, this is adding an image to signatures, something which is prohibited. And it doesn't even work correctly; it adds the time you changed your sig. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, useless and inspires others to have an image in their sigs which is frowned upon. — Seadog^Talk 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fix. Rather than deleting, shouldn't it just be fixed to not allow images? And are you sure the signature doesn't work? (because that can be fixed too). -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be fixed, but why? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I can see how it would be useful to some people. The question, under a deletion for a template that takes up almost no hard disk space, should rather be why not keep around? -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This effect can and should be achieved without using a template (by typing the susbted version directly into the 'nickname' box on preferences. --ais523 17:59, 22 December 2006 (U T C)

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 page.

Template:Defunct football club 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox Football club}}, following the addition of the attribute dissolved. There are currently no article transclusions of this template following that standardisation. --robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Qwghlm 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ck l o stsw o rd|^queta!|_Suggestions? 12:33, 19 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Featured topic[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. Kirill Lokshin 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puts a big ugly "consellation of stars" graphics on hundreds of main article space pages, ignoring long discussed previous decisions about keeping metadata off the main article space. also unnecessary as there is already an FT template on the article's talk page. "featured articles", after much discussion and many afds, just about held onto its main page star, as it is understated and the FA project is the oldest and most established on wikipedia. this recently instated project has never been brought before the wikicommunity at large (talkpage consists almost entirely of 2 users) so is not yet entitled to start advertising on main article pages in order to increase awareness of it. see precedent of GA project, which has consistently had its attempts to add main article page stars deleted. FT is no different. --195.114.94.194 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - kill all main-space metadata templates. Raul654 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Raul and previous concerns about using a discrete star for FAs. Sandy (Talk) 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As one of those "2 users" who has been contributing to the project, I don't mind its deletion. While I see nothing wrong with putting project-related icons in the top right corner, this particular project is probably too new for something like that (and it's only on about 50 articles, not hundreds). WP:GA has established itself fairly well into Wikipedia and can make a strong argument to be allowed onto the main space; WP:FT cannot (at least not yet). That being said, I have to disagree with your comment that it's an ugly icon, I think the designer did a good job with it and I would like to keep the icon on the other FT templates. --Arctic Gnome 19:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:GA is a random and subjective process, as an article can be annointed GA by any editor. I would vigorously oppose GA stars anywhere but talk pages. Sandy (Talk) 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm considering MfDing the project. Just plain weird. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your MfD proposal, featured topics are there to fill a gap between FA and FPort. For groups of articles with around 3-20 entries, there is no reason to make a portal for them, but it is notable if all of them are high-quality articles, as it shows that Wikipedia has thoroughly covered the entire topic by devoting several comprehensive articles to it. --Arctic Gnome 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But featured portals don't transfer featuredness to all the articles relevant to the portal. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think getting rid of this template will eliminate the trickle-down featured status. All that will be left in member articles is a note on the talk pages telling editors that the article is beneficially contributing to the overall comprehensiveness and featuredness of the topic. --Arctic Gnome 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you mean the template puts it on the mainspace? Reading the template and looking at its usage it seems to go on the talk page to me. I see, it's on the talk page of some and the article page of others. In that case, delete, because as the project says, just because the topic is featured, doesn't mean the article is featured; there might be several articles in a featured topic that do not represent Wikipedia's best work, therefore this graphic on the article page is decieving. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As ONUnicorn indicates, an article that is part of a featured topic may not be an FA or FL itself; if it were applied only on pages which already had the featured distinction, replacing {{featured article}} or {{featured list}}, I wouldn't have as much of a problem. That said, the image is too large vertically. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the FA star is useful (and it's useful to readers to know that they are reading an FA-quality article), but this is ugly and too large, and doesn't confer much useful information. I'm not sure where this 'featured topic' thing came from, but I'm not enthusiastic about the idea in general; labeling a bunch of articles that are not individually of FA quality but are somehow collectively worth featuring seems like an unmaintainable sinkhole. Opabinia regalis 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support the FA-stars, because they bring better attention to the best of WP (although I do understand the objections). However, I agree with the bright-line distinction preventing GA-stars (disks, whatever), and even those would be better justified (and less intrusive) than this. Serpent's Choice 07:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has been point out above, particularly by Titoxd and ONUnicorn, this project is conceptually different to other (established) forms of featured content and the use of such a template is inappropriate. Besides that, the image itself is too obtrusive.--cj | talk 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think we can see where this is going... I preemptively removed the template from every page using it, rather than leave it to the closing admin to remove it from 50 articles. Figured it's only fair, as I added it to about half of them. --PresN 16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it to the other half and I also want it deleted. I think that's all that needs to be said on the issue. --Arctic Gnome 19:04, 21 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:WikiProject Religion[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 Redirect. Kirill Lokshin 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant with new Template:WPReligion, which also includes the assessment criteria. Actually, didn't notice this existing template until well after creating the other one. My heartily embarrased apologies there. --Badbilltucker 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I don't care which one is redirected. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:13, 19 December 2006 (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 page.

Superseded Metra/NICTD infobox 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Template:s-rail, Template:s-line. All transclusions have been converted. ---- Loco830/Espio (Rant) 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —CComMack (t–c) 23:56, 20 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Move to gaming wiki[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 redirect. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Template:gamecleanup; see Template talk:Move to gaming wiki. Tzaquiel 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to the other template. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the text should probably be included into {{gamecleanup}}, as it's helpful (people should be told how to post their gaming info). -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:18, 1 January 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 page.

Template:Infobox Hong Kong Secondary Schools[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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Secondary school can be used here. Currently used in one article, so shouldn't be much of a problem. --Howard the Duck 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't just ignore consensus as to which things should be in the infobox by creating a new infobox for your articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:11, 18 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Aramoana table[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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no pages link to template, and it looks like it would only be a single-use template if there were. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete infobox template with no parameters. That defeats the point of an infobox. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:05, 18 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Minnesota Football Coaches[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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no pages link to template, similar template already exists Template:GoldenGophersCoach --Gopherbone 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:48, 20 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Minnesotacoaches[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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no pages link to template, similar template already exists Template:GoldenGophersCoach --Gopherbone 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:44, 20 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Minnesota Golden Gophers[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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no pages link to template, similar template already exists Template:GoldenGophersCoach --Gopherbone 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:14, 19 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox dark entente[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(Упражнение В!) 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for one article, which I have prodded. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and subst - just in case the prod fails. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - infobox with no parameters? How silly. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:32, 29 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Airnav[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(Упражнение В!) 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused. Superseded by Template:US-airport, Template:US-airport-ga, Template:US-airport-minor, etc. --Allstar86 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if its been superseded, why not just tag it with {{tdeprecated|Airnav|US-airport|date=December 2006}} and leave it, so anyone who used to use it can find its replacements? Picaroon 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the last few instances of it just recently. Really noone uses it anymore, so I don't think there'd be much confusion. There's 3 (or possibly more) different templates which include the airnav informaiton independently. I guess this template could simply be marked as deprecated, but leading people to Template:US-airport is not the complete story. The new templates are rather different and it's not just one template being a better version of the older one; it's more like a consolidation of minor templates (some of which did not exist independently) in several different new templates. I had thought deletion was the best way to go about this, but if you / consensus feel otherwise, then alright :) --Allstar86 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you got rid of the last few instances just recently, what about someone who's been on a two month wikibreak and comes back to create an article about the airport they just arrived from, attempts to use the template, and gets nothing? I'd say best just to leave it, with an explanation at the bottom/link to explanation about what to use now. Picaroon 23:36, 18 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Month 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 delete. —Mets501 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A series box at the bottom of May (disambiguation), September (disambiguation), etc. DAB pages are not for browsing, so adding this is just distracting clutter of no practical benefit. --jnestorius^(talk) 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There really is no benefit to this template- it adds no encyclopedic value to disambigs. -- Kicking222 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "DAB pages are not for browsing" is a citation of stated policy rather than a statement of fact. I could definitely see people using this just because it piques their interest. And the "distracting clutter" argument is utterly unconvincing. Do you seriously maintain that this little box actually prevents people from finding what they want in the list above it? --Hraefen ^Talk 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "DAB pages are not for browsing"? I browse through DAB pages all of the time. I don't see how this is any different than the grouping template at the bottom of countless articles. Koweja 18:00, 1 January 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 page.