Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 15 April 17 >

Contents

[edit] April 16, 2006

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 deleted by User:Marudubshinki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:City Terminal Zone link

Template:City Terminal Zone link (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Content is just the link City Terminal Zone. No inclusions on What Links Here. The content is shorter than the template name, so I doubt it's being actively subst'd. SeventyThree(Talk) 23:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Worse than useless. John Reid 17:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unused --Judzillah 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete after viewing template, its worse than useless, it means nothing!!--Danny 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a rephrasing of the title. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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 all Circeus 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete disambiguation templates

These are apparently no longer needed, and there is an excessive proliferation of similar-looking and poorly-documented disambiguation templates in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. -- Beland 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • speedy delete -- all retired long ago --William Allen Simpson 06:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's about time someone brought order to all this mess.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom ST47 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not needed. --Judzillah 03:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah baby, let's do so some spring cleaning. All that useless cruft being left behind... :D - The DJ 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Subnational entity

Template:Subnational entity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete -- This bloated template keeps changing its displayed name, currently "Country subdivisions", as each previous incarnation is disputed. It serves no purpose, its contents are already in the related categories, more complete contents already are listified at List of terms for subnational entities, List of subnational entities, and Matrix of subnational entities. It is almost the entire page at Division (subnational entity), and half the page at many other locations. --William Allen Simpson 17:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • comment - where have been any disputs on the (non-existing) previous incarnations? Are you spreading false claims to easier go through? Depending on your ability to produce encyclopedic content on this subject, you can help expand Division (subnational entity). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the claim that the content can be found more complete in lists is nonsense. This is true for every navigational template: the content is allways to be found in lists or articles. And as Willy said, it's more complete in other places, but this is so because it is a navigational template and only contains the english terms. See also Template:Subdivision term spanish, Template:Arab subdivision - the latter already survived a TfD. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful navigational template. — Instantnood 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and whack with an axe™. Consider opening an RfC if another reincarnation appears. John Reid 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You indirectly claimed there has been at least one reincarnation, please consider to remove your claim or to provide evidence of re-incarnation (s). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      Sorry, no. It's my opinion. John Reid 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not a matter of opinion. You claim something untrue. You were notified of this. So you spread false claims. Do you like this? Do you like lying? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no harm in keeping it. As for its size, Wikipedia is not paper.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is used in a fairly limited number of very special articles, hence of little burden. Its purpose is different from those of category and list. `'mikka (t) 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems useful, definatley not onuse --larsinio (poke)(prod) 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Large ugly template. Suggest redesign with link to category and list only, after {{Otherarticles}}.
    • comment - of course it is large, but linking to a category would be bad for the reader because the category 1) contains foreign language terms 2) is not structured. You are invited to improve the design if you think the template is ugly. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It may be large, but it also serves a purpose. Perhaps it could stand to be edited or clarified, but I don't believe it needs deletion. --Judzillah 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no harm. --DDima (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like a lot of work was done to create this. It is very comprehensive and can be very useful. Good job Tobias Conradi. Piercetp 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful in articles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strongly keep per above. --Domthedude001 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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 all Circeus 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament bracket templates

These templates are part of an earlier cumbersome attempt to generate a tournament bracket. They have been replaced by Template:16TeamBracket, Template:Round16, and some of the other better designed templates listed on Category:Sports templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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.
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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sigma Chi infobox

Template:Sigma Chi infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template is only used or possibly useful in Sigma Chi, where it has been replaced by the standardized Template:Infobox fraternity Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unused --William Allen Simpson 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Firstly, why is there a need for a standardized information box for Fraternities? Secondly, there are things that are important to different fraternities that should be included in the info box. Founders, founding site, etc. I'm voting to keep simply because each fraternity is vastly different and they can't all be combined into one infobox. 4.225.19.135 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There have been other fraternity infoboxes such as this which have been deleted. Yes, every fraternity is different, but then again every fraternity has "standard" info like "founders, founding sites, etc.". Info like this is not unique and I fail to see why each fraternity should clutter wiki with their own infoboxes. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pagrashtak 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Chairman S. Talk 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Then why don't we look to update the mundane and boring standard fraternity box to include...oh i don't know, things that are actually relevant. Such as names of founders, a box or two for grand officers, principal governing bodies, etc. The Sigma Chi box is pretty informative, the "Standard Infobox" is an uniformative and ugly mess. Why don't we put some real work and thought into it, rather than just deleting one of the better info boxes because "it might clutter wiki with infoboxes." Batman2005 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • So if it the standard infobox is "uninformative and ugly mess" then why is used in dozens of fraternity articles without a complaint? --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 06:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom . Batman, if you want to make a better standard box, go ahead. JoshuaZ 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with standard box. John Reid 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Gosh Dysepsion, here I was thinking this was a place for people to put their opinions as basis for keeping or deleting a template. I mean, far be it from me to think that a standard fraternity info box should, you know, provide some information about the fraternity...you know like...founders, colors, flower, coat of arms, and other important things. Guess I'll get to work on one that is better and nominate it as the new standard, in the mean time I won't post more opinions because Dysepsion doesn't like those. Batman2005 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Batman2005. When you actually try and maintain all fraternity and sorority articles and gaurd them from vandalism/vanity additions and care about the overall integrity of many wiki articles, not just the organization you belong to then feel free to criticize, otherwise keep your sarcasm to yourself. Opinions are what drives deletion pages so try to maintain a sense civility. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a maintainer of one fraternity page (Alpha Kappa Lambda), I think the infobox is fine. ONe use templates are not good at any time. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Until we actually share DNA † Ðy§ep§ion †, you can refrain from telling me what to do, thanks mom. Additionally, I am a frequent contributor to wikipedia, although I should apologize that I don't live my life through wikipedia as you clearly do. I personally don't care about other fraternities, if I did I would have joined on of those, my point is simply that the standard info box should include more information, SIMILIAR, but not exactly to what the Sigma Chi one includes. But that's ok, i'll make one and nominate it for acceptance, i'm sure you'll show up and vote against it though, so whatever. Batman2005 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that Template:Infobox fraternity should be used. If it is not good enough, then that discussion should occur at Template_talk:Infobox_Fraternity --Judzillah 03:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I see nothing wrong with the current template for Sigma Chi. As a alumni member of the fraternity, I am very proud of the page that has been created in wiki for Sigma Chi, and if changes are needed they should be decided by members only. If outsiders have problems, they should maintain their own sites and keep their business to themselves. 170.141.109.33 18:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me? I think you have wikipedia confused with the Sigma Chi website...... Besides this discussion is about the infobox, not about the Sigma Chi entry in general. - The DJ 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There already is a Infobox for the exact same category of information. If it needs work, then debate and fix it to be better. The exact point of the infobox is to group consistent sets of information over multiple "related" articles, and not to create new ones for every single article. Note that as a last resort an Infobox can have "optional" arguments for important information that is not relevant to certain other pages. I suggest to Delete, and copy the code to the infobox fraternity talk page so it can be discussed what should and what should not make it into the current Infobox. -The DJ 18:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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 CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Joke new messages

Template:Joke new messages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This has no encyclopedic value and is not used on any pages. A template isn't necessary for a new messages spoof. Sango123 (e) 01:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The user box templates have no encyclopedic value either, and most of them are still templates that haven't been deleted. It is not like the name "Template:Joke new messages" is using up any space for a real template. Just because it isn't the size of a userbox, doesn't mean you can't consider it a userbox. If you delete this template, you might as well delete all of the userboxes under the category funny. Also, people want to put this template on their user page. If we delete it, where are they gonna put it if users need it. --GeorgeMoneyTalk   Contribs 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and send anyone trying to use it to bed without a cookie. The hand-made fake new message bars are annoying enough; let's not encourage people by providing templates for them. Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's make a compromise. As Sango123 said, you don't need a template to spoof the 'You have new messages' prompt. Check other user's pages (mine included) to see how they do it and follow suit :)
    You'll find it's done like this: <div class="usermessage plainlinks"><div class="plainlinks">You have '''<font color=002BB8>[[Practical joke|new messages]]</font> (<font color=002BB8>[[Practical joke|last change]]</font>).'''</div></div> — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 02:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    If we are gonna do what nathanrdotcom says, then lets at least make a category of people with the message, so people can find the code and copy it into their page. It was hard enough for me to find one of those users to copy the code and make the template. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 03:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    I wouldn't agree with making a category for that. (There seems to be something off with your signature that's keeping the small font on unless I put my response under a new line) — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    OFF TOPIC: I fixed the signature, I had to add a </sup> tag. --GeorgeMoneyTalk Contribs 04:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    Still OFF TOPIC but your sig still looks like it has issues, like perhaps a newline before "Contribs" (I fixed your sig above). —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and also and at the risk of WP:BEANS, this template has potential for abuse. JoshuaZ 05:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this definitely isn't something to be encouraged by making a template for it. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:BEANS →AzaToth 17:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:BEANS --William Allen Simpson 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, people are free to act like fools but I see no reason to encourage it. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I, the creator, say to delete it. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well if you, the creator say to delete it, go there and slap a {{db|reason}} on it and it'll be deleted. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia%7ETemplates_for_deletion_Log_2006_April_16_4dcd.html"