Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 26

< November 25	November 27 >

November 26 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. -- Steel 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MainarticleNintendoWi-Fi Connection edit

Nonsense template created by User:Wlvdfsbg. See contributions by that user.

Speedy delete as a test page, and tagged as such. --ais523 15:52, 27 November 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:Busch Parks 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. The content of this template exists in the more detailed Template:Anheuser-Busch Companies. --Hagerman^(talk) 19:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Superceded template. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom also.__Seadog^♪ 02:01, 2 December 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:Frequent flyer programs 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 weak keep M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These programs have little to do with each other. There are already templates for various alliances, and there's a category for frequent flyer programs. This is just going to clutter up airline pages. Virtually every airline has a frequent flyer program, so this is akin to making a template that lists every airline in the world. --DB (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The programs have a great deal to do with each other, all being different ways of implementing the same concept, and also being in direct competition with each other. While almost every airline has a program, only a few are notable enough to have wikipedia pages. But your point about cluttering up airline pages has merit. Maybe it would be best to have the template only on the pages of the programs themselves, rather than also being on airline pages. Do you think the template in it's current form, with links to the airline pages, is fine, as long as the template isn't actually placed on the airline pages? Or should the airline names in the template not be wikilinks? Or maybe you have an idea for a different way the template can be designed. But I think there is value in a template for navigation between frequent flyer programs. There is a category for all loyalty programs, but the category page doesn't say what airline each program is linked to, so it isn't nearly as useful. -- Crocodile Punter 12:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support just having the template on frequent flyer program pages. There aren't a whole lot of articles on those anyway. DB (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Frequent dlyer programs are not really notable and articles on them should, in my opinion, be merged into the airline pages. Qantus is a good example of this. As a result, this template is not complete. If it is to be used, it should be only on frequent flyer pages. --Bduke 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the template from airline webpages, it now only appears on frequent flyer program pages. -- Crocodile Punter 10:44, 29 November 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:SER 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. Used only in couple of user pages while the articles use the up to date Template:SRB --Avala 17:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a redirect for those userpages. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only 7 users we are talking about here. Avala 14:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And any people coming back from an extended wikibreak, who would have to waste their time looking for the new one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then we could save all possible typo templates as well? Someone might think that AME is template for the USA, or someone might guess that three letter code of the UK is GBN or whatever. This is purely a mistake as someone thought that SER will become a code and decided to create a template. In reality SER stands for nothing while SRB is country code. Avala 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the template was designed for articles, it should only be considered in that context. Also, redirects on templates are a bad idea. Either alert the users or subst: it on userpages. --humblefool® 00:59, 29 November 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.

Australian administrative units 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated by Template:Australia state or territory and Template:Australia territory respectively, have been redirect since early 2005, nothing links here. Orderinchaos78 10:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 21:02, 30 November 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.

Australian road templates consolidation 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use, nothing links here, deprecated by Template:Infobox Australian Road --Orderinchaos78 10:47, 26 November 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.

Australian network logos 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seven logo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Nine logo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ten logo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've removed these templates from articles they were used in because they were inserting fair use images into articles where fair use would not apply. They are now unused, and can be deleted. _JD^talk 10:15, 26 November 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:V0.5/Small 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has also been superseded, by {{V0.5}}. No uses of this template. Renesis (talk) 05:50, 26 November 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:Peerreview/Small 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been superseded by {{Peerreview}}. No uses of this template at the moment. --Renesis (talk) 05:45, 26 November 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:Adelaide Suburb 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is obsolete because it has been succeeded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}. I also has no transclusions. --◄§ĉҺɑʀκs ► 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. -- Renesis (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed --TheJosh 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed (I was the creator of the template) Orderinchaos78 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed.__Seadog^♪ 02:02, 2 December 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:Raumschach diagram 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 closed. --humblefool® 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful. It dosen't show anything but { TEXT }. no such template. no diagram. Jer10 95 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm confused. Did you check the What links here page? There are several existing usages -- from what I can see it is for a variation of chess which requires a unique board layout, and in each case it produces the correct diagram. Definitely useful. -- Renesis (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no reason to delete it. _JD^talk 10:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Shows proper formatting, not just { TEXT }, highly useful. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 11:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for what it does; the nomination reason of a corrupted template seems incorrect. It would be nice if the nomination were withdrawn so that this could be speedy-kept (so the TfD notice doesn't mess up the articles). --ais523 15:54, 27 November 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:Journal web reference 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been deprecated. Only incoming links are from the new version (Template:Cite journal) and an old TFD debate. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. -- Renesis (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obsolete. Kaldari 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ansell 10:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or redirect per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.__Seadog^♪ 02:01, 2 December 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:Mtnbox topo 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 M a rtinp23 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been deprecated. No significant incoming links. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. -- Renesis (talk) 05:59, 26 November 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.