Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 14

< April 13	April 15 >

April 14 edit

Template:Imagenumber 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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used in one instance, effectively redundant to the native MediaWiki message MediaWiki:Category-media-count, so remove one instance and delete --Iamunknown 21:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also, since this template is not and cannot effectively be regularly updated. Images are going into and coming out of categories all the time: leave this to MediaWiki! Gracenotes ^T § 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no added value to the software system. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one actually made me laugh! No offense to the creator who is presumably well-intentioned, but I just had this mental image of someone sitting there, counting the images, then updating the number, then immediately counting the images again, then updating the number, then taking a sip of coffee, sighing, and counting the images.... :) Xtifr _tälk 13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MediaWiki can handle this. Funpika 16:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. MediaWiki can do it. Acalamari 18:04, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Image needed of bipasha basu 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 speedily deleted WP:CSD#G2 by User:NawlinWiki. --ais523 15:18, 16 April 2007 (U T C)

Unused, no evidence it was ever used and, further, insufficient context to determine where it should or should not be used. --Iamunknown 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I trust it was intended for Bipasha basu, but we have other systems for this. Looks mostly like a user's experiment with wikipedia. might be eligable for speedy --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. I guess I'm hesistant to speedy templates since there appears to be little consensus about what types of templates are speedy-able. --Iamunknown 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. Perhaps WP:CSD#G2 (test page), but an admin may not see that. –Pomte 14:09, 15 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Stagecoach Devon Fares 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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus fares are not encyclopedic, as per WP:UNENC (2). Has been removed from the only article it was used in. — Adambro 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or travel guide. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete travel guide information or trans wiki as appropriate. Regan123 09:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Acalamari 18:05, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:US state navigation box 2 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template replicates {{US state navigation box}}, it is not used on any page and adds no functionality over the original template. It was created as an alternative template in order to maintain features removed from {{US state navigation box}} without discussion or consensus.. — VerruckteDan 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant fork. –Pomte 23:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to serve duplicative purpose. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:02, 17 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Kassiesa 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. The template says, "This image is copyrighted to kassiesa.com/uefaclubs. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that copyright holder is attributed." I took a look at the site in question and it appears to be a collection of logos for soccer organizations. It is unlikely that the website owns the logos and thus this permission is irrelevant. — BigDT 16:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agreed, unlikely indeed. Looking back, this template was involved in a discussion around July 2006. I wonder what happened with al it's uses.... --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused/probably illegitimate. –Pomte 23:48, 22 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Sheffield Supertram stations 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. All articles using this template were deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herdings Park supertram stop. — Jeremy (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Nick C 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Adambro 20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the nominator. Acalamari 18:05, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:ABA image 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image copyright tag that specifies a by permission only license for images from the "Australian Broadcasting Authority". -— BigDT 15:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BigDT said why. Gracenotes ^T § 20:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an acceptable license. Gavia immer (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gracenotes. Acalamari 18:06, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Police Car 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image copyright tag tells us nothing about the licensing of the image. If I take a photo of a police car, regardless of the copyright of the designs on the police car, my photo is still subject to copyright and in order for Wikipedia to use it, I would have to release it under the GFDL. — BigDT 15:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Nick C 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a confusing and unnecessary template that possibly could encourage users to misinterpret Wikipedia policy and/or copyright law. There's no reason that our standard licensing templates can't be used for photos of police cars. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete confusing indeed. It's an attempt to circumvent the general confusion surrounding copyrights on images by specifying the rules for a specific subject. However it's even unsuccessfull at that, and the subject category is way too small. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with {{bus}}, a similar case. Jkelly 17:40, 18 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:George Clooney 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 keep, i.e. nomination withdrawn, no one other than the nominator supports deletion (this is a non-administrator closed deletion). --Iamunknown 05:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two-link navbox. Does not offer useful navigation. Complicated "See also" section. — hbdragon88 07:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - His article lists two more films, which I have added. –Pomte 08:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - navigational boxes should probably not be used for actor's films, since doing that would mean a lot of clutter in film articles. Gracenotes^T § 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Director's films (Category:Film director templates), not actor's films. –Pomte 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. I must have misread the template. I thought it was an actor template, for some reason. Never mind, keep. Gracenotes ^T § 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh snap, owned by not looking at the George Clooney article and checking out whether the navbox was complete or not. Nomination withdrawn unless it is impossible to do so (I recall an AFD where the nominator couldn't withdraw his nom since some people had cast "comments in the disucssoin"). hbdragon88 04:18, 15 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:usc4 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. No longer needed. Completely replaced by {{UnitedStatesCodeSec}}. —Markles 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Nick C 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though the shorter redirect doesn't hurt, calling it "4" is unintuitive. –Pomte 23:46, 22 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:USC4 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. No longer needed. Completely replaced by {{UnitedStatesCodeSec}}. —Markles 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Nick C 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though the shorter redirect doesn't hurt, calling it "4" is unintuitive. –Pomte 23:46, 22 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:University of Missouri 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is pretty simplistic and has been made redundant by the Public colleges and universities in Missouri template. — Lazytiger 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. –Pomte 08:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteobviously redundant - thank you Astuishin 10:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 12:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no longer needed. Acalamari 18:07, 16 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Drmmt3 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. Templates should not misrepresent policy, and this one's wording and numbering at least implies that removing maint tls is a blockable offense (which, per Amarkov's remark, would be all-too-easily abusable). >Radiant< 09:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of a policy specifically prohibiting the removal of maintenance tags. These are often left on pages for months without any further edits. They are also used needlessly. Whether the tag should stay or go is an issue of content, not vandalism. Until a page is approved as policy prohibiting the removal of tags and specifying that doing so will result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia, then I believe that this tag should go. Otherwise, we are misleading people as to what our policies are.--Richard Maxwell 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {{Uw-afd3}} and {{Uw-afd3}} should probably be included here, based upon the nominator's logic. This is not a vote, at all. Gracenotes^T § 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, because those aren't maintenance tags. The template says, "Please stop removing maintenance notices."--Richard Maxwell 01:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I mean {{Uw-maintenance2}}. Whether there are against policy or not in themselves, they can be disruption, which can merit a block. Interesting, the uw-maintenance system has a template for 1 and 2, but {{uw-delete3}} and {{uw-delete4}} are suggested after that. Gracenotes ^T § 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, too easy to abuse in POV disputes. ("You can't remove that NPOV tag because I still think it's biased!") -Amarkov moo! 03:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maintenance tag disputes should be discussed on talk pages. To notify a user, type out an invitation to the discussion instead of a boilerplate message with that accusing image. If a user is obviously going through articles to delete all tags they see, use uw-delete. –Pomte 08:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, encourages violations of blocking policy and the inappropriate use of blocks in content disputes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Removal of maintenance tags is not a common form of vandalism as far as I know. The deciding factor for me is that the warning is, as Amarkov notes, particularly susceptible to abuse during content disputes. -- Black Falcon 21:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" If nothing else, Template:Drmmt3-n should probably be included in this discussion. Xtifr _tälk 00:49, 15 April 2007 (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 section.