Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 12

< March 11	March 13 >

March 12, 2006 edit

Template:Venezuelans1 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. While the discussion here was rather limited, the template in question is clearly an outdated duplicate of {{Venezolanos}}, which means there is no default presumption that it should be kept in the absence of an overwhelming consensus to delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuelans1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused alternate version of {{Venezolanos}}. Kusma (討論) 10:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:24, 12 March 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:PNumber 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 unanimous: delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PNumber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template that was used (until mid-January) to add a See also section of "combinations of the letter P with a number". A rather indiscriminate collection, not very useful and not suitable for a navigational template (even if it is cleaned up). Special:Allpages/P0 is better if this information is really needed. Kusma (討論) 10:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics. CG 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BD2412 T 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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:Funky 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. I've also merged the single word "please" into Template:For. At this point, the two templates are identical. Whether or not the presence of "please" is required can hopefully be sorted out without creating any further forks. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a functional duplicate (fork) of Template:For. Its name has nothing to do with its function. And no, it's not worth redirecting either. It seems the only reason for the duplication is Matt Yeager's desire that it say "please", where Template:For does not. -- Netoholic @ 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Keep, there's no harm in having it. Why bother deleting it? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary and misleadingly named. Angr/talk 11:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, Matt. It is harmful to create functionally identical template forks, as this produces easily preventable inconsistency throughout the encyclopedia, and it makes it more difficult for people to know which template to use. I don't believe that the word "please" should be included, but you can propose that it be added to {{for}} (or simply add it, at the risk of being reverted). —David Levy 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - although {{for}} should say please... BD2412 T 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename Wikipedia is inconsistent. The best way to see if there is consensus on this is to keep both and see which spreads (adding cross-references on talk or as noinclude tags). Septentrionalis 18:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These hatnotes are horrendously disorganised and several people have, with no discussion, created ones with overlapping uses. I'm currently working on defining a small number of templates to replace them all. In the meantime, templates that have no functional difference from existing ones that were created with no discussion should, IMO, be speedyable. Hairy Dude 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork. Flower party■ 05:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork. CG 09:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to incomprehensible name and unneeded duplication —optikos 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete; {{for}} should say please. -- nae'blis _(talk) 03:43, 20 March 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.