Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14 edit

Template:$ 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! 05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary. Just a way to complicate something simple. —METS501 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally, totally useless. --Haemo 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be subst'd, but that makes it even longer. –Pomte 07:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete also note that Teplate:S (which is not the same as {{S}}; look at the namespace spelling) redirects to this template. Slambo (Speak) 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
subst and cascade delete There is also a {{Spaces}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, previously deleted here. -N 15:27, 16 June 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:FlagBox 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of Template:Infobox National flag — Guilherme ^(t/c) 18:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. And update Flag of New Mexico. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~This seems to be fork as a by-product of an edit dispute. User:ANNAfoxlover has some disagreement over Template:Infobox National flag, and created Template:FlagBox.~~ I will notify ANNA. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excuse me, but I made that before I even knew that there was a flag template, since I had not seen any before, and was rarely used. Also, I made it because there are many other flag articles other than national flags, and I wanted there to be a bigger image of a flag, and a space to honor the designer of the flag. It was not a result of an edit war, as the nominator believes. It is for flags other than national flags, since most flags do not have a FIAV symbol assigned to them. ANNAfoxlover 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a problem. We can edit the Template:Infobox National flag to include other than national flags. Also add a field to set the flag width. Ps: The National flag template has a space to show the designer and the FIAV field is optional. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 23:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my FlagBox one is much simpler than the National flag infobox, and I would like FlagBox to stay, as well as national flag infobox, because National Flag Infobox is extremely difficult to use. ANNAfoxlover 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's simple, but not flexible. I didn't found where are the difficult in the use of Template:Infobox National flag. There is instructions in talk page (yes, it's not intuitive. I think's better change it). — Guilherme ^(t/c) 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must have overlooked the time stamp. I apologize for accusing of edit war. Nevertheless, we don't need two templates that has the same purpose. ANNA, please take some time to review WP:OWN and WP:ATA. Infobox National flag seriously lacks documentation. But that is fixable. {{{inuse}}} of FlagBox can be replaced by {{{Adoption}}} of Infobox National flag. {{{designers}}} by {{{Designer}}}, and {{{proportions}}} by {{{Proportion}}}. Custom image size is yet to be implemented in Infobox National flag. It is doable. But I don't see a reason for it. If we allow it, people will have all kinds of custom size across the site, which will obstruct consistency. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have clarified the documentation for {{Infobox National flag}}. This template is completely redundant. 240px is plenty wide; there is no need for the flag to be any wider, especially on small screens. –Pomte 08:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate of the Infobox National flag (which I shamelessly borrowed from the Spanish Wikipedia). Scott has been making changes to the infobox to include all elements from Anna's infobox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:21, 16 June 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:AbiaGovernors 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! 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant with Template:AbiaStateGovernors. — Balloonguy 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete housekeeping. I also took the liberty to make sure there isn't any other similar template. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary template. Acalamari 01:51, 15 June 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:Types of nebula 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 After some consideration, there was no consensus to delete. Defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) Evilclown93_(talk) 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Too many terms are used to describe nebulae, including reflection nebula, emission nebula, diffuse nebula, HI region, HII region, molecular cloud, dark nebula, planetary nebula, protoplanetary nebula, Bok globule, supernova remnant, etc. Either the template could be left woefully incomplete (in which case it is not useful for navigation) or all of these terms could be added to the template, which would then make the mass of links too long and too difficult to read). Moreover, except for some discrete objects (such as planetary nebulae), most nebulae are diffuse, nebulous objects that are really difficult to classify according to "type". It would be better to use Category:Nebulae for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment IANAA, but your list isn't all that long, and more importantly demonstrates that people have classified the nebula despite their being diffuse. Why not link those attempts at classification together? Debivort 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The list could be made much longer. Moreover, some of these classifications are not really practical. For example, many interstellar clouds have subregions that are seen in emission, reflection, and absorption. (This is ignoring the fact that they all look the same at infrared/submillimeter wavelengths.) Subdividing them is not practical. Dr. Submillimeter 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's the size of the template you're worried about, then please take a look at {{Countries of Africa}}. Furthermore, content of a nav box can grouped, like {{Currencies of Africa}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's the nebulous boundaries of what could be placed in this template that is bothersome. Dr. Submillimeter 20:37, 14 June 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:DJIA 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 all three. Trolling. Circeus 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:NOT#IINFO. — Asuk 13:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this WP:SOAP? If you have concern about propaganda, advocacy, self-promotion, advertising, then you should question the individual articles, not the navigational box. And can you elaborate more on why this is WP:NOT? And please, group the two other TFDs below together. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AEX companies edit

Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:NOT#IINFO. — Asuk 13:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a bit confused how those apply. Would you mind explaining a bit about the template, and why those policies are relevant? Gracenotes^T § 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euronext 100 companies edit

Delete - per WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:NOT#IINFO. — Asuk 13:17, 14 June 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:Nameindefblock 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. Sr 13 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rarely seen this template used, is it really nessacary? Typically users blocked for an inappropriate username recieve a {{usernameblock}} tag on their talk page unless the inappropriate name is a blatant violation and likely created in bad faith, in which case {{indef}} is sometimes placed on their userpage.. Rackabello 03:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to {{indef}}, as nominator Rackabello 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't a particularly harmful idea, but implementing this on a wider scale—having a template for every kind of block—could be onerous and creepy on the long run. Gracenotes^T § 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete every page that transcludes it per WP:DENY. Kusma (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the first time I've seen this template, and there are many other far wider used templates than this one. Evilclown93_(talk) 10:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replace with {{UsernameBlocked}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with {{UsernameBlocked}}. Eddie 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to {{UsernameBlocked}}. Carlosguitar 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary template; {{usernameblocked}} is good enough. Acalamari 23:39, 14 June 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.