Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10, 2006 edit

Template:Rival Schools characters 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged information into Template:Rival Schools, so this template is now redundant and useless. Would like to have it removed, as there's really no use for it now. NeoChaosX 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete Nominator is the only contributor and believes the template to no longer be useful. --ais523 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- CSD G7 applies strictly to "mistakenly created" pages. You appear to be quoting the former wording of Template:Db-author, the text of which was inconsistent with policy. —David Levy 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wow, you're right. {{db-author}} has said that ever since I arrived on Wikipedia, and I assumed it was policy. Does this make {{db-blanked}} useless then? (Author-blanks of articles seem to happen mostly when they're losing an AfD or have had notability concerns pointed out IME.) Striking the 'speedy' in my delete above. --ais523 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    - Thanks for bringing that template to my attention! The application that you describe does not reflect policy, and I've modified the tag's wording accordingly. —David Levy 17:07, 11 July 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:England topics 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 no consensus to delete. Pagra shtak 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently big and ugly, I can't see how this can ever avoid being so. There are some nice navboxes for instances where there is a clear, finite set of articles (U.S. vice-presidents, say) and some nice thematic ones on cuisine, Israel and Christianity that link to a spread of core articles and give a balanced overview of the subject. This one is subjective, however, often bizarrely so. Does the English cricket team really need a navlink to the London Stock Exchange? Do we need a link from The Blitz to roast beef? The list of English civil parishes to link to the Football Association? The list of English gardens to link to English English? The Norman Conquest to link to the English rugby team and the Bank of England? All of these things are stereotypically English, without doubt, but is a navbox like this really necessary? I don't see how it can be edited into something more reasonable, unfortunately, so I've brought it here. I guess others might find it useful, I just find it distracting and rather random. TheGrappler 21:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cut it down to size and turned it into a hidebox, but I agree its usefulness is limited, so neutral. ~ trialsanderrors 03:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The English topic box is useful and divided well into relavent categories. Even if some people find its functionality limited, it is not in a position that causes any distraction from the main article. I say leave it there, the only other option is to add the English topics to a United Kingdom topic box, although, that would be even bigger and uglier. --Lfavaloro 00:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure we need a "United Kingdom topic box" - I'm not keen on topic boxes in general, but some (with a very coherent topic) seem fine. But I get the impression this one is trying to do the work of a portal more than a navbox. As an analogy: what if I made a United States topic box that linked together the Civil War, cowboy, country & western music, hamburger, NASDAQ, and white flight? Or an Irish topic box that made it really easy to navigate with one click between pixie, potato, list of Irish villages, and Irish Republican Army? Do you get my drift? It's the subjectivity (and tendency towards stereotype) in the links, and irrelevance of links between articles, which I dislike. TheGrappler 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems fine. FearÉIREANN \^{^(caint) 02:34, 15 July 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:Main articles 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 after conversion --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now redundant with {{main}}, which allow for multiple articles. Circeus 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all uses and delete or redirect. As I recall, there wasn't even consensus to switch the articles over to this template in the first place. —David Levy 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use bot to change over existing instances to new version. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's always been redundant and was created with that in mind. User:Netoholic had a good reason for its existence, but I don't know what that was exactly. Has something to do with server load issues, and problems with Template:Main displaying correctly on some browsers with its current coding technique (which was just changed by Circeus with unknown consequences). Obviously nothing has since been done, but there are some issues here with a lengthy history and rationale for existence that really should be investigated with a "comment" in the talk page before taking it to TfD. -- Stbalbach 12:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My change only involved the adition of a bit of code already used for disambiguation templates (who have an otherwise identical formatting), which removes the template when the page is printed. Circeus 13:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Netoholic's rationale was based entirely upon concerns regarding possible server load issues related to the use of meta-templates. Brion Vibber (our lead software developer) subsequently informed the community that such fears were unfounded. That's a moot point, however, as Template:Main no longer includes meta-templates. It now incorporates ParserFunctions code, an officially sanctioned solution recently added to MediaWiki. —David Levy 13:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Restore use of 'main' template to all pages and then get rid of this kludge/fork. --CBD 20:15, 16 July 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.

Portuguese elections 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 (already orphaned) --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been replaced by Template:Portuguese elections. Mário 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been replaced by Template:Portuguese elections. Mário 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been replaced by Template:Portuguese elections. Mário 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been replaced by Template:Portuguese elections. Mário 20:19, 10 July 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 Torchwood2 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 deleted by MacGyverMagic. Pagra shtak 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Bad faith creation. The user put this template on some user pages, probably without consent. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I indef blocked creator of template for trolling, this template just one small part of that trolling. NoSeptember 13:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be so cliché-ironic on this, but DELETE. DELETE!!! Will (message me!) 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... possibly speedyible per T1? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be less cliche than Will. Exterminate!. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:14, 14 July 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:RHEM series 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. Pagra shtak 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox with two links. Doesn't do anything one link couldn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - Since there's something appealing about having a visually consistent navbox and there might be more of these (and then the template can be recreated) ---J.S (t|c) 22:39, 14 July 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.