Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25

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. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 25/User templates for the templates marked for deletion and the reasons why. - LA @ 07:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put all discussion of these deletions on the subpage. - LA @ 08:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per redundancy, they all seem to be useless now :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. --Swift 09:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please make sure you replace the templates on userpages before deletion - I clicked on a few of them at random and every one I clicked on still has transclusions. They either need to be substed or, with the timezone template, replaced with the new version of the userbox. BigDT 14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, that's a lot of templates. Delete them all on condition that they be replaced with the new templates before they are deleted. —Mira 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Script to make substitutions go easier - See User:BigDT/monobook.js. Hit view source and copy the stuff into your monobook.js. It will give you a nice script to replace these things. Note that I'm using the javascript replace function and I haven't put code in there for all of the userboxes ... so if you are working on a different box, you may need to edit the replace command and put in the box you are actually working on. BigDT 17:48, 27 August 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:User science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Malformed userbox, serves no purpose. BigDT 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Nor do any of the other user boxes ;-). Have you checked it with the transcluders whether they mind having it deleted? Perhaps it isn't malformed at all.. --Swift 07:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I looked at "what links here" - only two transclusions, one of them into a "userbox table". CharonX/talk 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Odd, I didn't see those, what I saw were transclusions to User:Mhsia and User:Ciar. --Swift 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can only agree with BigDT here. CharonX/talk 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not even worthy as a userbox. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• CommentWell, it isn't a userbox, I can see that. I have seen one sentence templates for articles, this seems to be a one sentence template for user pages. The author should be asked if there were any further plans for this. - LA @ 07:06, 27 August 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Selective quotation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template causes harm to the appearance of articles that is much greater than any benefit it might provide. By definition, it is only used to mark statements that have already been sourced, and it does so with a very large and intrusive inline marker. I therefore nominate this template for deletion. Instead of using this template, either change the quotation to make it more accurately reflect the source, or take it up on the article's talk page, possibly moving the quote in question to the talk page until the issue is resolved. dryguy 02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. You can quote me on that. dryguy 02:18, 25 August 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.