Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 27

< May 26	May 28 >

May 27 edit

Template:Eurosigns 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) 02:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was one-used by Linguistic issues concerning the euro. Unlikely to be transcluded in more than one page. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless. Marcus1234 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not needed. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if unused. -- Blockinblox 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unneeded. —dima /talk/ 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete- NRV. Dfrg.msc 07:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, as it is used only once. The template ("message") namespace exists for transclusion, but this transclusion does not appear needed. Gracenotes^T § 13:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems unneeded. Carlosguitar 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use for this template. Acalamari 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as per Gracenotes above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:37, 3 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:Infobox Trinidad and Tobago City 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) 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was a two-use template that was replaced with {{Infobox Settlement}}. MJCdetroit 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant of {{Infobox Settlement}}. Now not used. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trinidad and Tobago rocks! Delete it though, not needed. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if unused. Blockinblox 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Pile-on Delete. I like that term, I'll have to borrow it in the future. —MJCdetroit 01:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 35.9.6.175 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it was made redundant by {{Infobox Settlement}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:37, 3 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:NYC-Infobox 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) 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-use. Redirect of {{Infobox City}} — MJCdetroit 03:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant of {{Infobox Settlement}}. Now not used. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer needed. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if unused. Blockinblox 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single use template. Doczilla 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made redundant by {{Infobox Settlement}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:37, 3 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:Infobox Lisbon 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) 02:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused. — MJCdetroit 03:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant of {{Infobox Settlement}}. Now not used. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the rest of them; the lot aren't needed. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if unused. Blockinblox 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{Infobox Settlement}} made this template unnecessary. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:37, 3 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:Infobox Polish village 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) 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly used. Standardized to {{Infobox Settlement}} and improved. — MJCdetroit 03:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant of {{Infobox Settlement}}. Now not used. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if unused. Blockinblox 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infoboxes for distinct countries work if there is a single standard the country can agree on and the information provided as distinct from the global standard is useful and meaningful (the {{Infobox Australian Place}} is a great example of this). However, in this case, none of the above really applies. Orderinchaos 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rendered redundant by {{Infobox Settlement}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:37, 3 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:Infobox Polish Voivodships 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) 02:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. — MJCdetroit 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant of {{Infobox Settlement}}. Now not used. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Voivodeships are not city, this would be a fork of {{Infobox Voivodeship}}.Circeus 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made redundant by {{Infobox Settlement}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:37, 3 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:Very Incomplete List 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) 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Duplicate of {{Expand list}}. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for those lists that are terribly short/incomplete, see my post here. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what {{Expand list}} is for. Why does it need a duplicate? --Farix (Talk) 11:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not sure what this template gain us in addition to {{Expand list}}. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, certainly not necessary when compared to the other template; there's hardly a difference. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{Expand list}} says enough. Tim Q. Wells 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The classification of a list as "very incomplete" is unnecessary and unclear. The dichotomy between a complete and incomplete list is clear: either a list includes all persons, events, or objects that meet its inclusion criteria, or it does not. What is the definition of "very incomplete" (or, conversely, "very complete")? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see also Wikipedia:Substub. -- Visviva 12:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with Black Falcon: no clear definition of "very incomplete"/"very complete". Acalamari 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template with undefined, subjective "very". Doczilla 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made redundant by {{Expand list}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above —dima /talk/ 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, an example of creeping featurism --Ssbohio 14:37, 3 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.