Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7 edit

Template:User NoCredit 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 history merge then delete M a rtinp23 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox moved to User:Jaksmata/Userboxes/User_No_Credit. No links to this original remain. --Jaksmata 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G6 (Housekeeping). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the Phone The box was copy & pasted, and the GFDL has been broken. An admin will have to do a history merge first, then it is speedy-G6-able. In the future, move works much better. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was moved by the original creator, sheesh. Speedy delete, creator asking for deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original creator, yes, but not the only contributor. One other user, Doc glasgow made a minor contribution. Very trivial, but the GFDL doesn't make exceptions for trival contributions. It'll take an admin a few seconds to merge and then it can be deleted. Koweja 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the Phone then Delete per reply above. Koweja 03:04, 14 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:North Auckland Line 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, but if someone wants to make a nicer template showing just the station town before and after the article subject, I'll be happy to undelete to userspace so you can use the info. M a rtinp23 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this template here once before, and strangely the four comments of "delete", two of "reformat" and zero of "keep as is" led to a conclusion of "no consensus". The template hasn't changed since then (and neither has the number of redlinks) - it's still mammoth and unnecessary, and dwarfs many of the articles on which it is placed (such as Kamo, New Zealand and Maungaturoto). For many of these places simply being on the rail line is not a major feature of the town (it's not even mentioned in several of the articles, such as the aforementioned Maugaturoto). And yes, before anyone mentions it, it is dynamic, but dynamic templates don't hide on all browsers, so a lot of readers won't have the option of hiding this thing. I'd say reformat and keep, but it's very patchily used (many of the articles listed don't use it at all), and as such I question whether it's worth keeping at all. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but someone should replace locale links with red-links to the stations that serve the towns, instead of the towns. The distances are also a little distracting. Neier 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Such templates serve no useful purpose. They dominate small articles with information almost entirely irrelevant to that article. The appropriate replacement would be to place a single sentence in the article saying that it is on the North Auckland Line. That allows those who are interested to go to the appropriate article.-gadfium 03:04, 13 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:TOC float right 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 redirected -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, redundent, as there is already TOCright.100110100 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Outright delete.
delete: According to the creator, "This one was created as I was unable to find anything about the other one after hunting around for about an hour." So they knew the other existed and just couldn't get a handle on how to use it. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the creator asked anyone on Template talk:TOCright for assistance. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, no. When I created the template, I couldn't find anything about the other one after hunting around for something like it for over an hour. So I created these. Only months after they were created did I become aware of the other templates. I'f I'd been able to find the other templates, I wouldn't have created these. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep as redirects: I have no problem with either of these deletions, but isn't there any procedure requiring that templates be orphaned before deletion, or at least marked for deletion in a way that doesn't totally break them? These templates have been replaced with redirects to TOCleft and TOCright, with deletion notices added so the redirects don't work, which means there are currently a couple of hundred broken pages all over Wikipedia. I'll try to fix this in a way that at least makes these pages usable for the duration of the debate. TSP 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It doesn't look like this particular template is redirected right now and the template doesn't seem broken in the couple of instances I've just looked at. Redirection and Orphaning takes place after the decision to delete has been accepted and before actual deletion takes place. Orphaning before nomination is not a good thing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was redirecting before 100110100 changed that and marked it for deletion. He's not acting in very good faith in this whole situation. After discussing it for a couple days, I changed them to redirects, but 100110100 won;t be satisfied until they are deleted. He thinks that they are "wasting server space" despite them being less than 1K in size as redirects. 100110100 refuses to be reasonable and just drop the issue once I had changed them to redirects. Instead, he'd rather break several hundred pages by deleting them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can accuse you of vandalism. You could have made this absolutly pointless template to disrupt wikipedia. If we let EVERYONE make a permutation of a TOCright template, & then redirect, that would be the point of wikipedia, would it? A playground for vandals? That doesn't sound like fun.100110100 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Is what you are suggesting that certain templates should be, due to technical constraints, immune from being brought to TfD? I don't think that's what you mean, is it? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: What technical constraints? All I'm saying is that they were made into redirects (which functioned perfectly well), and still 100110100 wants to delete them, despite this causing hundreds of articles to be broken. If someone has a bot that can go through all of them and replace the templates, I'm fine with that, but deletion without doing that is not acceptable. There are many, many templates all across Wikipedia which redirect to other templates. Why are these two any different than those? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I don't think you're fully understanding the TfD process. The templates won't be deleted prior to their being orphaned, meaning that all of the articles that transclude the to-be-deleted templates will be edited so that the equivalent surviving templates are transcluded instead. That is the accepted procedure, so don't worry about page breakage from the template suddenly disappearing. (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Completed_discussions for the 'holding pen') By 'technical constraints' I meant the 'breaking the redirection' which you had mentioned. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: That's not what I understood 100110100 wanted, so therein lies the confusion. All of his comments on this issue so far have been "Just delete them" with no indication that any effort would be put into fixing any problems caused by that. I guess my main concern, then, is why not just leave them as redirects? Redirected templates are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, and are frequently employed. Any server load caused by them is below negligible. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Just because 100110100 wants to delete them without orphaning them doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. If that user is an admin and violates process in that manner, there's a problem there; if that user is not an admin, they can't delete the template themselves and process will take place as outlined on the main page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed it isn't redirecting any more; I fixed it. It would have been preferable if those 200 pages hadn't been broken for the 7 hours before I did, though. I don't really know what's lost by leaving them as redirects.... TSP 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Suggestion To clarify, you might want to change your comment above from Comment to Keep as Redirects. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough, that's probably an accurate representation of my views. TSP 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to redirects, like they were before 100110100 messed with them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change back to a redirect. People are able to remember some names for templates easier than others. What is the harm in having a redirect? older ≠ wiser 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Cbrown1023 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. —David618 ^t e 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as they were before. Redirects cause no harm and this is a reasonably valid name for it. Koweja 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 100110100 has now marked the redirect templates for deletion: [1], [2]. I guess having one XfD discussion going on at once isn't good enough. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:05, 14 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:TOC float left 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 redirected. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, redundent, as there is already TOCleft.100110100 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Outright delete.100110100 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete: same argument as for the 'float right' template ... the talk pages for both templates bear the same discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per my comments above. This is a bad faith nomination on 100110100's part as he's refusing to accept anything other than deletion and breaking hundreds of pages which use these templates. This was a redirect (so those hundreds of pages wouldn't be broken) until 100110100 messed with them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Cbrown1023 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. —David618 ^t e 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as they were before. Redirects cause no harm and this is a reasonably valid name for it. Koweja 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 100110100 has now marked the redirect templates for deletion: [3], [4]. I guess having one XfD discussion going on at once isn't good enough. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:04, 14 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:Henderson State Alumni 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template appears to be unused and currently contains only one name. It is generally not useful to create a list of alumni in template format; use of a template implies the information will be either subst or transcluded into multiple articles ... and this would not be desirable for long lists of alumni. Suggesting the alternative of simply listing 'notable alumni' on the Henderson State University page ... if that is in fact the associated organization. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use a category instead. BigDT 04:56, 11 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:MNTV West Virginia 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for this template because Template:My Network TV West Virginia is updated and is linked to other templates. Example: See also: ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, NBC, PBS and Other stations in West Virginia. -- Alucard 16 02:07 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Diez2 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 23:21, 7 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.