Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8, 2006[edit]

Template:Animated Films by Bill Plympton[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 --William Allen Simpson 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Animated Things By Bill Plympton}}. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 18:56, 9 July 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:User 10 years old[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, now 2 users --William Allen Simpson 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems silly:

Only one person is using it.
Even if it did become popular, it is likely to end up on the pages of as many users who are no longer 10 as users who still are. Indeed, the one user using it is no longer 10. People are better off using Template:User Birthday and/or categorising themselves within Category:Wikipedians by generation.
There are no templates (that I can find) for users to state that they are any other age at the moment, so it makes no sense to make an exception for the age of 10.

-- Smjg 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This not useful. Mário 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will (message me!) 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SushiGeek 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 18:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hwonder talk contribs 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... Silly indeed, per nom. Grand master ka 06:30, 10 July 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:Unblockabuse[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 keep pschemp | talk

There's no such thing as {{unblock}} abuse; that template simply lets admins know that the user is requesting to be unblocked. Readding it for a second opinion is not abusive. --SPUI (T - C) 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands as of the time of this comment, Delete. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The template is used when an individual uses the unblock template repeatedly, despite repeated refusals by different admins to unblock. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that a problem, and why is it allowed to protect the page in that case? --SPUI (T - C) 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (after edit conflict) Per Essjay. If you had been with me this morning you would have seen that this template serves a useful purpose. Your statement is hardly justifiable. One wouldn't userstand unless you handle unblocks, do RC patrol, etc etc.--Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand perfectly what this is about - I've been on the other end of such a conflict (before this template was created). --SPUI (T - C) 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - there are people abusing {{unblock}}, so there is a good reason for this template to exist. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are people "abusing" {{POV}} - should we make a {{POVabuse}} to tag articles on which someone adds the POV tag more than once? --SPUI (T - C) 15:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is such a thing as unblock abuse. I encounter it quite often. I see nothing wrong with protecting the page so the vandal will get bored and move on. -- Psy guy ^Talk 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not simply leave the template on and do nothing, or leave it while describing why you're not unblocking? --SPUI (T - C) 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (after edit conflicts) per above. G.H e 15:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Fire Fox 15:46, 08 July '06
Speedy Keep - {{unblock}} abuse is a relatively common trait among blatant vandals. (Those who deserve to be unblocked will get unblocked without any abuse anyway) There is little point in wasting our time dealing with such users. - Tangotango 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then don't waste your time. Simply leave the template and explain why you're not unblocking. Removing the template simply escalates it into a revert war. --SPUI (T - C) 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 15:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete I've ever given. Banned users talk pages should NEVER be blocked under normal circumstances. It's just not right. It's the only page they can still edit! The only way they can still comunnicate! By blocking that off, we're denying them the chance to defend themselves! - Kookykman|(t)e 15:55, 8 July 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:BAB-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 Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 23:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Orphaned after the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Autobahn infobox template. --SPUI (T - C) 12:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A pet peeve of SPUI apparently, recent edits at Bundesautobahn 1 show there's not quite consensus about this thing yet. --doco (☏) 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An RfC on the talk page SPUI cites came out in favor of removing the exit list (which uses the template in question) from the infobox and putting it in the article text. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:39, 8 July 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:Swiss Confederation[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. Pagra shtak 04:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains the infobox from Switzerland, very unlikely to be used on any other page, and so useless. Schutz 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - single use templates are bad. --SPUI (T - C) 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keepas I think it is useful. Sophy's Duckling 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom and SPUI. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. ~~—Shayl^talk 21:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)~~ Shoot. I meant to do that with my main account, sorry. —Mi ra 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes, Shayl is my sockpuppet, and I freely acknowledge that fact on both user pages. I've been using Shayl to separate out my userbox edits, I guess I just forgot which account I had logged in. —Mi ra 21:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm cool with that. Just trying to add a bit of fun to a dull process. --SPUI (T - C) 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you were, my note was more to the passing user wondering what was happening. —Mi ra 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Switzerland already uses the standardized Infobox Country template. I'd also like to note that there are a quite a few more of these single use country infobox templates out there that people involved in Wikiproject Countries are going through and deleting. --Polaron | Talk 00:12, 9 July 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.