Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20, 2006 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:February 15, 2003 Protest Attendance by City edit

Tagged tfd (and afd!) by JK the unwise with summary "wikicode moved to List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests". Currently orphaned. —Cryptic (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I messed up that nomination and then forgot about it. The information was orrginal put into a template because it was to big for the page it was on. However the information is now due to be merged with List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests and all the information from this template has been moved there.--JK the unwise 10:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--JK the unwise 10:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list is more appropriate, and no reason having list and template. Michael Ralston 02:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template has seen its day and can now be retired. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:28, 23 February 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 speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Metro Manila edit

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 no consensus - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3LC edit

Template:3LC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Obsolete, as MOS:DP currently calls for only {{disambig}} to be used on disambiguation pages. —Michael Z. 2006-02-20 03:24 Z

Delete—my request. —Michael Z. 2006-02-26 00:03 Z
Keep, as this is not a disambiguation template. Therefore, MOS:DP is not relevant (speaking as the editor that conducted the straw poll and wrote that section of MOS:DP). The controlling section currently at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists of abbreviations, acronyms, apocopation, and initialism has for many years stated, "Such pages facilitate navigation and replace disambiguation pages." (emphasis added) --William Allen Simpson 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just false. That note refers to pages like List of all two-letter combinations, which don't use this template either. A page like dot is a disambiguation page which may include three letter words, abbreviations, or both. You've keep pushing the idea of "abbreviation pages", but no WP convention or editor agrees with you. —Michael Z. 2006-02-26 00:06 Z

delete - those pages are clearly disambiguation pages, interpretations to the contrary notwithstanding -- Tedernst | talk 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete a distinction without any practical difference. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pages mainly with TLAs are different from the usual dab pages. -- User:Docu
In what way are they different? Can you provide some examples? In a cursory examination of several pages with this template, I could not see any distinguishing characteristics that made them significantly different in form or in function from other dab pages. older ≠ wiser 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is in a common code space and is not a true disambiguation. Vegaswikian 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? older ≠ wiser 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand either: disambiguation pages are all in the main name space with articles, if that's what it refers to. —Michael Z. 2006-02-26 00:06 Z

Comment. Bkonrad, I'm not sure anybody owes you an answer. You've taken a "cursory" look. I've spent hours documenting the differences. You've already admitted that you didn't bother to read the documentation. TfD is not the proper place for conducting a major revision of current guidelines. Those of us with legal experience will remember statutory construction. --William Allen Simpson 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What guidelines? Where have you spent hours documenting the differences between disambiguation pages and some other thing? You operate in complete disregard for the conventions other editors' practices. —Michael Z. 2006-02-26 00:06 Z
WAS, in the first place, I wasn't asking you. Perhaps I was being somewhat too self-deprecating when I said "cursory examination". In fact I've looked at a majority of the pages that use this template. And as I said, I fail to see ANY significant difference in form or function from a typical dab page. Personally, I'd prefer if someone other than you could respond, because I generally find your discourses to be more confusing than helpful. older ≠ wiser 03:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the pages serve the same function as disambiguation pages do, and should therefore be considered as so. -- Nataly a 03:58, 26 February 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 keep. --William Allen Simpson 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language templates edit

The following templates a just copies of the now deleted Template:ll for specific languages: Template:Lang-pl, Template:Lang-tr, Template:Lang-ar, Template:Lang-cs, Template:Lang-hr, Template:Lang-ru, Template:Lang-it, Template:LangWithName, Template:Lang, Template:Lang-grc, Template:Lang-uk (are there any more?). As {{ll}} has now been deleted, what's the point of these? --Khoikhoi 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — or at least reconsider. These templates do more than the deleted template:ll. They are used to mark up words or phrases not in English. They place the name of the language at the beginning, as a wikilink to the article about the language. Then they display the word, with the template marking it in CSS as the language in question, and suggesting appropriate fonts for language-stupid browsers (MSIE). Template:lang-ar allows me to read Arabic words and phrases in my favourite Arabic font. --Gareth Hughes 20:20, 20 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dorwin's planets edit

Delete Pointless fancruft. Chairman S. | Talk 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless indeed. — mark ✎ 08:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other user's reasons. --Khoikhoi 08:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Given that it was nominated by its creator. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per others. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NG,Vancarlimospacecraft, and per nom. -- Avi 21:26, 27 February 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 keep. --William Allen Simpson 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boeing7x7 edit

Keep - the Boeing articles need some typographic fixing, and so does this template, but it is usable. 132.205.44.134 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While orphaned, it may at one point serve as a good template --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:35, 26 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Idw-commons edit

Template:Idw-commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not necessary. Notification on the WikiCommons for the purposes that this template is meant for should do, as mentioned on the talk page of its parent, {{idw}}. Delete. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notification should happen on commons, not here. Superm401 - Talk 05:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 08:17, 22 February 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.