Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 8

< October 7	October 9 >

October 8 edit

Template:Welcome-anon3 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, as redundant. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unneeded template Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first TFD discussion so I'm not up on all the terminology and process. I created this template. It's orphaned because I tend to use the one in my user space User:Richardshusr/welcome-anon. The one in Template space is a copy of the one in my user space. I like the format of this template a lot. I use it every time I find an anonymous user who has no welcome on the talk page. It's a little strange welcoming an anonymous IP that is probably used by multiple users. Nonetheless, it serves as a gentler beginning to what is likely to be a bunch of vandalism warning leading up to a block.

Can you explain why you think this is not needed? I think it's a lot better than Template:Welcome-anon and Template:Welcome-anon2. --Richard 06:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this template is really needed or better than the other two. But as far as I know these welcome templates are usually subst: so they can be orphaned even though they are used. --Bisco 10:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates could be userfied. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is already userfied when I read that above right. If that is the decision the templatespace duplicate could be deleted. --Bisco 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template is already userfied but the reason a copy is in template space is in the hope that it will be used by others. (Being the author of the template, it makes sense that I might think it was the best of the lot.) If you think I should delete the copy in my user space, I will. The real question is: why delete this template? Is it less good than the other welcome-anon templates? If it is not worse than the others, then either delete the others or let them all stay. I can't see why deleting this template is important in the greater scheme of things. --Richard 21:48, 11 October 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 Coke not Pepsi 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, as userfied. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been nominated for deletion before: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16#Coke templates. This userbox has now been moved to userspace. Transclusions have been updated with the new location so it can now be deleted. Bisco 23:57, 8 October 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 Chuck Norris 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, as userfied. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been nominated for deletion before: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 13#Template:User Chuck Norris. This userbox has now been moved to userspace. Transclusions have been updated with the new location, except the transclusion in an archived talk page. --Bisco 23:30, 8 October 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 Bright Future 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 both, as userfied. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been nominated for deletion before: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 12#Template:User Bright Future. This userbox has now been moved to userspace. Transclusions have been updated with the new location. Template:User Bright Future and this redirect Template:Bright Future can both be deleted. Bisco 21:09, 8 October 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 Boris 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(Упражнение В!) 04:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been nominated for deletion before: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 12#Template:User Boris. This userbox has now been moved to userspace. Transclusions have been updated with the new location, except the transclusion in the old deletion discussion. Bisco 20:57, 8 October 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:Latest preview release/Game Maker 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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely limited purpose template. It is only useful to a single article (Game Maker) and the single line of relevent information can and has been placed in that article. Delete. --CobraWiki 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this template is indeed used in only one template, it's part of a larger infobox (Template:Infobox Software2, which for some reason uses a separate template for each page to store the data. Weird, but this template here is needed for the infobox. Harryboyles 11:12, 14 October 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 Bagels 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, as userfied. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox has been moved to userspace. All transclusions have been updated with the new location except this one: User:ForestH2/Userpage because the page is protected. --Bisco 19:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete": per nomination. Harryboyles 11:06, 14 October 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:Hurricane season categories 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(Упражнение В!) 04:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates automatically added the relevant categories, they have now all been subst'ed and there is no further use for these templates; as the categories are static. The three more specific templates were all just a version of the main template. Delete all of them.Nilfanion (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 9 October 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:GoT-Sites 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(Упражнение В!) 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A template to automatically add external links to a number of articles. It allows to easily add spam links to several articles at the same time. Salvageable links can be included in the articles, and have the template deleted. ReyBrujo 18:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I intended this template to allow easy addition/removal of general external links, so they'd display on all pages without having to edit them all. Page-specific relivant links would be added individually. --HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 23:02, 8 October 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:East Rail 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(Упражнение В!) 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page. As a matter of fact, it links to a redirect. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Also, not currently in use (Last use was in the October 10 page, but that has since been corrected). ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 16:46, 8 October 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:Infobox composer 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(Упражнение В!) 04:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is no longer in use. No pages currently use it. The template has been superseeded by Template:Infobox musical artist. Heave n's Wrath ^Talk 15:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason to keep a depreciated template. LittleDan^talk 23:18, 8 October 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 Tron 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(Упражнение В!) 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox has been userfied. All transclusion links were updated with the new location. Bisco 15:45, 8 October 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:Economy of the United States table 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(Упражнение В!) 04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant. It used to exist because it consisted of complicated table syntax that would make it awkward to edit the page Economy of the United States, but I replaced that with a cleaner infobox template, Template:Infobox Economy that I made. I've coppied the infobox to the Economy of the United States article, in line with the typical use of infobox templates. The same situation will come up for nearly all [Template:Economy of Country table]s as I work through them and apply the infobox, so I hope this can serve as a test case after which I do not have to go to TFD to delete every single one of these individually. LittleDan^talk 15:34, 8 October 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:Independent bishop 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(Упражнение В!) 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed experiment for an infobox, not used except in two derivative templates. Gimmetrow 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete the others below. In the future, do experiments in the user namespace. LittleDan^talk 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That remark is offensive, and unnecessary. Gimmetrow 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean it be offensive. I have drafted several templates in my user namespace, and you said it was a failed experiment, so I was only offering a suggestion for the future. LittleDan^talk 16:55, 15 October 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:Independent bishop Thuc-line 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(Упражнение В!) 04:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed experiment for an infobox, not used. Gimmetrow 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LittleDan^talk 18:48, 15 October 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:Independent bishop Old Catholic-line 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(Упражнение В!) 04:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed experiment for an infobox, not used. Gimmetrow 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom LittleDan^talk 18:48, 15 October 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:Great American Songbook 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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic list without any definition which singers/songwriters should be incorporated. Will lead to a biased list and there is no official definition for what constitutes a Great American Songwriter/Singer. KittenKlub 12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this template, and I think we need to define what Songwriters and Singers are included as main interpreters of this canon. With the growing resurgence in popularity of the Great American Songbook, I think this template acts a useful introduction for those readers and traffic new to this music. Gareth E Kegg 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. To me, the question is whether the list of songwriters in Great American Songbook is definitive. The article suggests it is, but without any sourcing. If it is, then the template is ok (I can live with some ambiguity in the interpreters list, since this is mainly about songwriters.) If it isn't, then the template is inherently problematic and should go. Wasted Time R 13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template is helpful, and as Gareth E Kegg said that with the resurgence of popularity of this genre it would be VERY helpful as a introduction to it.

--Sicamous 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course there is no "official" list of what constitutes a Great American Singer/Songwriter, but the term Great American Songbook is a very well-established term, widely used in song compilations by artists performing popular songs from the golden age of American popular songwriting generally acknowledged to have been between about 1920 and 1960, and referring mainly to those written by Tin Pan Alley songriters for Broadway musicals and Hollywood musical films. Some later composers, such as Burt Bacharach and Stephen Sondheim are also often included, because they wrote in a very similar style. Although the term refers to songs written by American songwriters, there is no implication that the singer must also be American. A performer's discography should easily demonstrate whether they belong in this category or not. Dermot 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. It's an artificial ideological construct, sure (usually favoured by those like Gene Lees who think American popular music went down the toilet with the invention of rock'n'roll & the advent of Dylan & the Beatles), but it's a useful grouping of a fairly coherent body of music, & I don't think there's any serious disagreement about the songwriters who are at the core of the GAS. --ND 18:23, 13 October 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:Michigan (album) 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(Упражнение В!) 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Gpollock 06:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fan of the album, but the songs are not individually notable nor is it appropriate to link non-song items that have the same name using an album template. --Dhartung | Talk 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dhartung. Even if individual songs were to get articles, it would be better to use some standard template like Template:Song infobox. -MrFizyx 21:42, 9 October 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:Infobox Dati2 Indonesia 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 tentative keep. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. *drew 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. The template was created very recently and the author is Indonesian, implying that it may be applied soon. Considering that there is only one day left on this and the author has not even been contacted on his talk page, I think it would be improper to delete it so soon. LittleDan^talk 17:05, 15 October 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:Infobox Kommune DE 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(Упражнение В!) 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of template:Infobox Town DE. Uses deprecated Wikipedia:hiddenStructure CSS hack. Only used in Lahntal. Ligulem 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom LittleDan^talk 17:01, 15 October 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:Infobox Newspaper2 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(Упражнение В!) 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of template:Infobox Newspaper. Uses deprecated Wikipedia:hiddenStructure CSS hack. Only used in UCSD Guardian. Ligulem 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I switched that article to the regular template, and it looks much better now. LittleDan^talk 16:58, 15 October 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.