Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17 edit

Template:Da Ali G Show episode 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox used 2 templates for it's display. It was duplicating {{Infobox Television episode}} and all 2 uses of the template have been replaced with the more general template and the showspecific template is no longer in use now. This is part of a larger effort to remove duplicity in episode infoboxes. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant and unused. Jay32183 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it does now link to three places its just a spoof of {{Infobox Television episode}}, as mentioned by the nominator.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:30, 18 February 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 page.

User:Patricknoddy/Userboxes/User Paint.NET 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 Deleted by Metros232 under CSD G7 - author request. mattbr³⁰ 16:04, 17 February 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 page.

Template:Current congressional delegation article 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was used to create a series of articles that have since been AfD'd and is no longer used. --G1076 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy (if possible) per nom.—Markles 21:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) 9:51am, February 11, 2007
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Speedy delete not an option for templates unless divisive or inflammatory. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 11:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much to say really because its just not relvant.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 11:31, 18 February 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 page.

SEPTA templates 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Kamope · talk · contributions 23:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too many and just taking up unnecessary server space.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:33, 18 February 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 page.

Template:Spamonly 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by a user who later turned out to be a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels (WP:CSD#G5), so rather than speedying it, I have listed it for deletion here to see if it has any relevance to anyone. It could be deleted under CSD G5 (banned user contribution), but seeing as it is used on a few pages (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spamonly), I am unsure of what to do. --sunstar net^talk 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and speedy; there's no need to create a subset of indef blocked users for spammers. -Amarkov moo! 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we have block-specific templates for sockpuppets. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense, because then we know to look out for sockpuppets of them. I don't see an equivalent here. -Amarkov moo! 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per the WP:CSD#G5 criteria it should be speedily deleted.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:34, 18 February 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 page.

Template:Usscl, Template:Ussc2, Template:Ussc3 and Template:Ussc2R 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the four templates above for deletion because none of them seem to be in use and they are all duplicative of Template:Ussc, which is widely used. Each is used to cite to U.S. Supreme Court case with the following format: [Volume] U.S. [Page] ([Year]). I understand that different websites offer the text of the case decisions (e.g., findlaw versus lexis versus cornell), but I think consistency is better and deciding which site to use is already an ongoing debate on the talk page of the widely used Ussc template. And again, since the nominated templates aren't used at all, it's a good sign that there is no need for alternate sites providing the same text. Pygora123 06:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With respect, I do not believe this template is relevant. Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no need for redundancy and converse need for consistency. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template is irrelevant. Daniel5127 | Talk 02:53, 18 February 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 page.

AM Browser templates 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. Probably should have been just speedied. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the article has been deleted, so should these. mattbr³⁰ 09:08, 18 February 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 page.

Universities in the United Kingdom navigational templates 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All superseded by {{Universities in the United Kingdom}} and are not transcluded anywhere. mattbr³⁰ 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These are good templates and could be used in many university related articles, definitely a bunch to keep!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful templates - much tidier than the UK university template. Universities are often classified by regionality. Bob talk 11:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For navigation, I think that the UK-wide template is much more useful as it links together all of the universities in the UK. When looking at universities, I think that people want to look at other universities outside the region of the one they are currently looking at, for example those in the major cities or in the top ten (The Times top ten are in seven different regions), and regional navigation limits this. The 'list of universities in...' lists group the universities by region (the only transclusion before nomination for all of these apart from one), and can contain much more relevant information. mattbr³⁰ 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. {{Universities in the United Kingdom}} does appear more useful. Though it looks crowded, regions can be re-instated in that if there is consensus (see old revision). Pomte 10:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would hate to see a {{Universities in the United States}} template, because that would fill up pages. Instead, either these regional templates should have a wikilink to the big one, or {{Universities in the United Kingdom}} needs to be deleted instead if any template must be deleted. This big template is too crowded to be of much use on any article pages, though it could be linked to by wikilinks from the regional ones, much like how many templates involved in U.S. television wikilink to each other directly. Jesse Viviano 21:01, 25 February 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 page.