Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 29

< September 28	September 30 >

September 29 edit

Template:Generate POTD R 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by {{Generate POTD row}}. No longer used anywhere. howch e ng {chat} 17:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obsolete and unused. --Aude (talk) 17:37, 29 September 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:EastEnders project 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{EastEnders project class}} — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AnemoneProjectors Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 14:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AnemoneProjectors Gungadin 14:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, moving the source of -class to the original, or else we'll have hell moving it over, then delete -class. --Quentin Smith 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not quite sure what you mean. The {{EastEnders project}} template has been replaced on every talk page it appeared with {{EastEnders project class}} and is therefore redundant. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:43, 2 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:Controversy1 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was initially used in the main article name space. I was bold and removed them because I did not feel that the template was encyclopedic and necessary in the main article space. This template could work on Talk pages, except I feel it is redundent with a large number of templates such as Template:Calm talk, and Template:controversial.Andrew c 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely inappropriate for placement in articles, and seems redundant with {{controversial}}, though the mention that consensus has been reached isn't provided for in that template. I'd rather give a chance for an example of how it could be useful before calling it useless. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The placements in main article space seem to be the actions of a single overzealous editor, Diez2, who, based on his contributions, seems to be very big on templates, and who in fact created this template a few days ago. Maybe we could just ask him to stop. I don't have an opinion on the overall template, because I'm really not all that familiar with Wikipedia's templates. --BCSWowbagger 04:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. One, it's redundant. Wikipedia already has a controversial template for use on talk pages. Two, it violates WP:NDT if placed in the main article space. Chrisbrl88 05:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Which of the speedy-delete criteria is this meant to break? --ais523 08:05, 29 September 2006 (U T C)

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete. It explains things more clearly than Template:Controversial currently does, making it useful for articles with lots of anon/inexperienced editors. (If kept, we should add {{check talk}} to it.) CWC(talk) 07:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing Andrew c's comment below, I vote for deletion. (Maybe we should add the bit about reading the article carefully to Template:Controversial3?) Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or merge~~ with {{controversial}}. This should clearly be a talk-page template, and IMO is better then {{controversial}} is at the moment. Agree with CWC that it should be check-talked, and I'll make that change now. --ais523 08:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- (!vote changed) Merge to {{Controversial3}} per Andrew c. --ais523 08:29, 2 October 2006 (U T C)

Update Except for a few words, this template is identical to Template:Controversial3. I don't see why we need to keep this template, if it already exists.--Andrew c 15:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant per Andrew c. --Aaron 18:33, 2 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 Kerisu 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfunctional infobox used only on User:Kerisu. The user hasn't made any contributions other than information about himself on March 12. TimBentley (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This falls outside of the realm of use for a template. Chrisbrl88 05:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which of the speedy-delete criteria does this violate?
Subst and delete Only useful on one page (which isn't even in the article namespace!). We shouldn't lose the information unless the userpage is MfDd. --ais523 08:10, 29 September 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:Bridges in Saint Petersburg 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gargantuan template, brimming with red links, duplicates Category:Bridges in Saint Petersburg. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or listify. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to break into subcategories by bridges across individual rivers and canals. Wikiolap 23:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Delete. Use list & categories, do not distract reader with the box. Pavel Vozenilek 23:38, 5 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.