Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3 edit

Template:2000 Summer Olympics medal count 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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is redundant with a section of 2000 Summer Olympics, which would be its only use. Jonel | Speak 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No need for single-use templates like this. Andrwsc 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, In my opinion, this template is useful, but this time is not season of 2000 Summer Olympics which is 6years before. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 23:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 16:33, 8 August 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 simple-5 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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible. There is no such thing as professional Simple English. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition, it's only a line of text. —Mi ra 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 07:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Rename and keep or delete per Zoz, below, and clarify what "Simple English" is (it currently links to a disambiguation page). Neil916 15:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have fixed the userbox. Writing at a professional level in "simple English" is no different than writing at a professional language in regular English. It means that you know the syntax, the grammar, the vocabulary, etc, very well and can (or do) create "simple English" works on a professional basis. It has nothing to do with whether or not English is your first language. BigDT 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better While it's good that you fixed the ubx itself, I still have no idea who ever or how one could "create 'simple English' works on a professional basis." Do you mean children's book authors? This is especially difficult as Wikipedia has not defined what simple English is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, Professional level of English can't be something that is like Professional lever of simple English which means This user doesn't speak English a lot or This user's second language is English. So, This template is unnecessary. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "Simple English" refers to Basic English in this case, then rename and keep as a valid concept (and rename the other Simple English templates too), otherwise delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. For those who are asking for it to be deleted, please see simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia. I think that will explain what it is talking about. There is a Simple English Wikipedia and there are people, irrespective of their language of origin, who can write at a professional level of Simple English. BigDT 14:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Simple" English is just basic English, thats kind of saying "Advanced Basic English" which makes no sense —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually, it's more like saying that you are an "advanced BASIC programmer". BigDT 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--NMajdan•talk 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC). per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User simple edit

Unnecessary. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless. —Mi ra 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently it's used to include the text "Languages that I'm familiar with" in a Babel table. See the tricky implementation here and here. --Zoz (t) 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.--NMajdan•talk 19:58, 10 August 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.

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. —Misza 13 ^{T C} 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User left Wikipedia for good edit

Unnecessary. Why April 25? Of what year? Delete.-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless. —Mi ra 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 07:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete it? This template is useful to one out of every 365.25 people that leave Wikipedia! </sarcasm> Delete per nom. BigDT 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is not useful because it has specific date. Why does this have date? *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. --Zoz (t) 23:00, 5 August 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:Hotels in Serbia 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. Robdurbar 17:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I guess it was created in good fate but how many hotels are there in Serbia? Imagine filling this template with a thousand hotels or even more. I think we should delete it. Avala 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ At the moment, 6 notable enough to be in Wikipedia with categorised articles. There's no reason to delete this at present; if it becomes bloated, it can be split. --ais523 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but split into what? I don`t see any sustainable reason to keep this template as it's oversize is not a question. Tomorrow we will have a template with one thousand Serbian hotels and it will be purposeless. We can always make List of hotels in Serbia but using a template for this is ridiculous. And no matter how hard I try I can`t find any similar template. Avala 11:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Split by geographic region (for instance, Category:Hotels in Belgrade is a bluelink). Not all hotels (whether serbian or not) are likely to be notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. This does seem to be the first hotel-related navbox, however. Going by precedent, I'm starting to think that this would be better of as a cat, so I'm changing my vote. --ais523 12:23, 4 August 2006 (U T C)
Delete Although I disagree with the nominator (I don't think overlength will be a problem), it seems that navboxes are rarely used for buildings by geographic reason. Also, categories will handle this better (and already exist), so I've changed my vote. --ais523 12:23, 4 August 2006 (U T C)
Delete This template is useful template, but hotel in serbia is not only two of three, many hotels in each countries. Therefore, This should be deleted. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per ais523. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 16:32, 8 August 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.

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 per creator's request. —Misza 13 ^{T C} 15:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medlineplus edit

This template was created and used only for a single page, and was subsequently blanked in December of 2005 after it was found to fail WP guidlines. Delete - no longer used, fails guidelines. NoahElhardt 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blank. Neil916 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The blanking was done by the then only contributor, stating that they wanted it speedy-deleted in the edit summary (but not tagging it). It fits the old wording of {{db-author}} but not quite the current wording of WP:CSD#G7, so I'm voting plain delete. --ais523 13:58, 4 August 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.

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 discussion was speedy delete G7 by User:Fang Aili. --ais523 11:05, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

Template:User Single Female edit

soft redirect for a Germanized userbox, is not linked from anywhere, changed back in early June. Delete. -- nae'blis 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy delete per CSD G7. Anything I created like this should be deleted, I've just lost track of them all. —Mi ra 18:40, 3 August 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 section.