Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

June 22, 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marcus Allbäck infobox edit

Delete, too specific. --Coredesat 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:53, 23 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael Gravgaard infobox edit

Delete, too specific. --Coredesat 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:53, 23 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Álvaro Santos infobox edit

Delete, too specific. --Coredesat 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:54, 23 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User beauty2 edit

Delete and replace with {{User beauty}} per nom. If someone wants a different image for their beauty userbox then they can substitute the template and change the image manually, no reason to have more than one box. (And if this is deleted make sure to remove it from the userbox directory).--SomeStranger^(t) 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant Eluchil404 06:27, 26 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jnetwork edit

Delete. Template related to an inactive project Wikipedia:WikiProject Info which is nominated for deletion. CG 09:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:WikiProject Info has been deleted at MfD. --ais523 16:14, 26 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scot rugby 2nd edit

Template:Scot rugby 2nd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{Scot rugby 2nd}} has been merged into {{Scot rugby prem}}, and the result reformatted to be similar to the SANZAR and French templates. All the pages using {{Scot rugby 2nd}} now use {{Scot rugby prem}} making {{Scot rugby 2nd}} redundant. KeithW 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Bob 21:01, 22 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scot rugby 3rd edit

Template:Scot rugby 3rd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{Scot rugby 3rd}} has been merged into {{Scot rugby prem}}, and the result reformatted to be similar to the SANZAR and French templates. All the pages using {{Scot rugby 3rd}} now use {{Scot rugby prem}} making {{Scot rugby 3rd}} redundant. KeithW 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Bob 21:01, 22 June 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 -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freetekno Soundsystems edit

Delete per nom. The last few items still in existance are up for deletion right now.--SomeStranger^(t) 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ja... that was recreated after speedy, actually. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 27 June 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 -- Drini 23:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eng rugby nat1 edit

Template:Eng rugby nat1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{Eng rugby nat1}} has been merged into {{Eng rugby prem}}, and reformatted the result to be similar to the SANZAR and French templates. All the pages using {{Eng rugby nat1}} now use {{Eng rugby prem}} making {{Eng rugby nat1}} redundant. Bob 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom KeithW 07:46, 23 June 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 -- Drini 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frac0 edit

Template:Frac0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{frac}} now accepts one, two or three parameters and thus effectively deprecates {{frac0}}. Christoph Päper 12:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--SomeStranger^(t) 12:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nationalparks 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 15:33, 22 June 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 Delete per only contributor request. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-r4 edit

Delete per nom. - Nick C 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the creator of this template. It is a remnant from when there was a CSD R4, but since there isn't one now this template should be deleted. Eric119 01:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case speedy delete, {{db-author}}. I tagged it. Grand master ka 20:03, 25 June 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 keep. LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox musical artist edit

Keep. No it isn't. Categories such as real name and aliases, birth date, notable albums etc, in fact most things that distinguish solo artists from bands are NOT included. I don't see how it is unnecessary. 82.145.231.4 10:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've added the fields from Infobox musical artist to Infobox Band. I see no reason to have two templates for exactly the same topic. Philip Stevens 11:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a poorly thought out nomination by unregistered user. The reason applies better to Template:Infobox Band than to Template:Infobox musical artist. Tim Ivorson 2006-06-22

Keep. Better (more options, looks prettier) than Infobox Band. 96T 12:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's steamlined... just makes things nicer and easier all together. Camcallister 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I echo 96T's comments. King Bee 13:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 82.145.231.4.--Esprit15d 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A band is not the same as a musician. Think Yardbirds/Jeff Beck/Jimmy Page/Led Zeppelin, or Guns N' Roses/Slash/Velvet Revolver/Scott Weiland/Stone Temple Pilots. Both of these templates are vital. --Zig 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, bands and musical artists are two distinct things. Warrens 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep, this template is superior to Infobox band and can also be used for groups, notable record producers, etc. --CJ Marsicano 15:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, used by many music articles. - Nick C 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, this is used by several FAs including Pink Floyd. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep very useful template that is not just for bands, but all musical artists. --Musicpvm 17:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BrenDJ 18:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and slap the nominator Antares33712 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; this baid-faith nom is placing a deletion tag on many articles (which may be confusing to readers and new editors) -- getcrunk ? 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep serves unique purpose. Let's remove the ugly deletion message. --Rob 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Kept as per above. It serves a different purpose than band, and is used in many different articles. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 19:42, 22 June 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 -- Drini 23:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MP edit

Delete per nom. - Nick C 15:38, 22 June 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 -- Drini 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MP2 edit

Delete per nom. - Nick C 15:38, 22 June 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 -- Drini 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BSASE edit

Template:BSASE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's a template just for showing two winners and of something that was only peripheric to the real Eurovision contest. Both things can be mentioned in the article without the need for a template. It's used only on the winners pages and the main Eurovision page, and there's already a page about the "Congratulations" festival. I don't think it's really useful. Andromeda 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst or delete I don't see why this is a template. If the information is useful in its current formatting it should be subst'ed, but it may be better simply to write the information as text and delete the template. ais523 10:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete No need to use a template for a few articles. - Nick C 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for it. Templates are things which are used in many articles. EuroSong ^talk 01:26, 23 June 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 -- Drini 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PlutonianSystem Footer 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 Delete -- Drini 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Splitmerge edit

Template:Splitmerge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant; it merely duplicates a portion of the functionality offered by the long-standing {{mergeto}} tag (which already accommodates a proposal to merge a specific section into an existing article). In fact, this new template is less useful, as its wording only allows for placement at the top of the article (instead of the appropriate section). Meanwhile, the {{splitsection}} tag (on which the new template is based) covers proposals to split a specific section into a new article. Delete. —David Levy 00:34, 22 June 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.