Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27, 2006 edit

Template:Infobox VT Route 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality has been incorporated into {{Infobox road}}. Should be deleted. TMF ^{T - C} 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 20:24, 29 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.

SCOTUS Templates 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 deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are all obsolete now, after the creation and implementation of Template:SCOTUSCase. These templates were used to create Supreme Court case infoboxes, but each of them is no longer necessary using the newly created template with its ParserFunctions. A few of the links are redirects, but I'm strongly in favor of deleting all of these, instead of using redirects, so that there can be uniformity among all the U.S. Supreme Court cases. The templates that are currently redirects are double indented, and I'm asking that the redirect pages be deleted. MZMcBride 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Postdlf 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy for above reasons. --Assawyer 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, does support mean delete? --Ssbohio 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ssbohio 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone called my attention to this proposal. I think some of the templates being proposed for deletion were ones I created for the simple reason there wasn't a single, good template to provide all the information. If the one template does do the job correctly for all years, it's a great idea, and in such a case I agree on deleting the redundant templates, provided all of the pages that use them have been revised to remove their usage, as we do not want broken pages. If this has been done, I have no objections and am glad to see a good fix done. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 03:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially housekeeping. Thanks so much, Paul, for making these templates. They worked well when we used them.--Chaser T 23:31, 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:FullHouseFamilyTree 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 to keep, hoping for an article to be created. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly unencyclopedic crufty OR template, not actually transcluded anywhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and maybe move to article space). While it is not transcluded, "What links here" shows 24 genuine inbound links (not counting links from user space or TFD related links) Charon X/talk 20:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's linked from a navbox. It's still crufty and OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Linked from the infobox, and is useful and interesting for Full House Fans. It can be moved to an article, rather than a template. -AMK152 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriate content for a template; material has no sources (and there are no good way to present sources in this format). Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be provided if it is moved to the article space. Sources are from the episodes. -AMK152 17:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy Definitely nostalgic, with links worth looking at. May also consider including in Full House article, because someone did put it together. Thisthema n 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge to Full House. --Bchociej 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge either to Full House or to its own article as consensus dictates. --Ssbohio 20:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articlify not really template material but information. Perhaps someone who knows about the subject could make this into an article? --ais523 10:05, 3 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.

Template:FA 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 Keep. Closing early; consensus is already clear and the template with deletion text is making many pages ugly. kingboyk 17:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just puts the featured article star picture in with a specific size and alternate text. However, it should be substituted where it exists (in non-article spaces) and then deleted because it lends itself to misuse. Many editors confuse it with template:featured article, as evidence by the comments on the template talk and the fact that today I found it inserted at the beginning of two featured articles (who knows how many times it has been inappropriately deployed in the past). It also lends itself to marking featured articles in lists in the article space, which there is no consensus for (imagine if we used the FA star next to every link to a featured article). If it is kept for use in the non-article space, it should be moved to a substantially less prominent name to avoid further confusion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally use this template in my userspace, but I am alright if this is subst'ed. I use it to denote the FA's that I wrote (I saw this used at Spoken Wikipedia before I put them on my userpage). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, change the name. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst and keep, maybe we should start substing it from this point on, but still keep it for future use —M in un ^Spiderman 10:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, used extensively on Wikipedia:Vital articles and with good reason! Dafoeberezin3494 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

change my vote to Delete, with Image:LinkFA-star.png ( ), this template is redundant. Dafoeberezin3494 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly make it subst-only if it turns out to be excessive. Handy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I find this good template to use when used properly. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom; subst & delete. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename and switch existing transclusions to the new name if deemed confusing. It's a useful template, and quicker/easier than remembering an image name. — TKD::Talk 21:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it to be a useful template, especially because it it's short name. It could probably be renamed to something like "FAStar" or "FAS" or something like that to reduce confusion. But it's easier than typing out the image name IMO. -- gakon5 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I saw this at WP:PCP. -TrackerTV 23:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Using subst: is a good idea, but the template should still be available. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, very useful. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst or keep, don't care, just get it over with so it doesn't wreck formatting on a multitude of pages! -- Миборовский 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a brief comment on the template (using <noinclude>), that hopefully can remove most confusion. -- kenb215 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete, seems best way to tidy up to me. --Bchociej 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and speedy keep with new name. I'm not sure why this is such a big issue when simply having subst directions similar to other templates (I can't remember which template it was, but one of them actually results in something like "Error - you didn't use the subst prefix!"). This looks terrible with the deletion notice on it, and it's not that hard an issue to solve IMO. Moulder 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename per Gakon5 and TKD. Pruneau^T 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. Snottygobble 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or userfy I'll suggest Template:InlineFAStar as an alternative name. I'm not entirely sure how this is useful in article space; maybe someone should userfy it if it's useful in userspace. I don't mind it being userfied into my space if noone else will take it. --ais523 13:04, 31 July 2006 (U T C)
Keep, of course. Preferably Speedy. --kingboyk 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ta bu shi da yu 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; possibly merge with {{featured article}}. A switch code could then work out whether the template is in an article or not, and place the star accordingly. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: useful at Portal:Music/Important. Please hurry - the notice ruins the template. Λυδ α cιτγ 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What was stated above: it was a nice addition, and this current notice-template is ugly. --Bobak 15:48, 2 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:Footer Olympic Champions 18km Cross Country Men 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 speedy deleted by User:Edgar181 per author request on an unused template. - Bobet 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combined with Template:Footer Olympic Champions 15 km Cross Country Men. Speedy delete requested by template author (myself). Chris 12:54, 27 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:Footer_Olympic_Champions_20km_XC_Women 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 speedy delete, author request on an unused template. - Bobet 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Champions box. This was combined with the Template:Footer Olympic Champions 30km XC Women. Speedy delete requested per author (myself). Chris 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Author request.Chris 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:04, 27 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.