Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6 edit

Template:ORHistory 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~A template~~ Templates ~~that was~~ decided on by Oregon Project participants consensus already exists ~~Template:Oregon Early History~~. — Awotter (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant template created without discussion of the history and rationale behind the existing system of Oregon templates. Katr67 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far too broad of a period to by much help to readers, that's why it was broken down into 4 smaller templates over a year ago that once the ongoing project is completed will match articles by the same name. Additionally, to properly cover the topic it would be too large of a template as the number of people, events, things, places that would need to be included is extensive. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with everything said by Katr67 (talk · contribs) and Aboutmovies (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - this template's use in numerous articles indicates clear utility, and its functionality is not matched by the template {{Oregon Early History}}. Happy‑melon 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that there was already an existing template Template:Oregon History, and that the Early History template is part of a series of four. See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#Massive recent template changes and new template. Katr67 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The navbox series can be seen here: Category:Oregon history templates. Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant (as has been noted) and, as of now, had received zero edits besides the addition of the deletion template (though it is brand new). The adding of it to pages appears to have been done by this user. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2008 (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:Musical notes 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better template already exists at Template:Semitones. There's also a bit of bias with this template as most of the English world doesn't use Fixed Do (so saying D is Re, for example, isn't true for many people). — Torc2 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The other template is much better, and this one is redundant. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I have fixed the other template to display correctly in IE7. Happy‑melon 16:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inferior to other template. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:19, 8 January 2008 (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:09F9-notice 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. Can't be substed due to GFDL, not needed, removed from talk pages. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been a problem for months, and prominent notices telling people not to do something only encourage it – Gurch 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete - this was very much needed at the time, but it's not likely to be needed in any new articles, and might possibly lead people to stuff beans up their nose undesirably. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This template is the second result for Googling "09F9", after the EFF's page @ http://www.09f9.com/. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (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:Off-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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete G6. Versa geek 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject talk page tag for a WikiProject which no longer exists.. — Music Maker 5376 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be even speedied under housekeeping. WP:CSD#G6 --Farix (Talk) 01:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. — Music Maker 5376 02:08, 7 January 2008 (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:Sailor-Moon-stub-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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously nominated for deletion on 4 January 2007 with no consensus. Template is currently unused and at a minimum should be renamed to make clear that it is not a stub template. — Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no idea what it's supposed to be for, unused, not a stub template yet uses stub formatting, uses unacceptable slang but would not have any advantage over {{list expand}} if it didn't. None of the arguments articulated in the previous TfD are convincing. Happy‑melon 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and inferior to {{expand list}}. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia does not have a sense of humor. Er, I mean, because {{expand list}} should be used instead. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless and better templates already exist. Collectonian (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; redundant. Most of the people in the relevant Wikiproject don't use it. --Masamage ♫ 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably a violation of the WP:MOS, too. JPG-GR (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. The weeabooism of this template is unhelpful, also (chibi is not an appropriate word in this context). JuJube (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note there is a duplicate at Template:Sailor Moon sectstub. JuJube (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one's in use, though, and isn't cutesy (at least at the moment). —Quasirandom (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2008 (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:Russia Infobox and Template:United States 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use hard coded infobox. Only use has been subst:'ed. RichardΩ6 12 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hardcoded instance (I want that new CSD!!) Happy‑melon 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double Delete. The reason that all countries use {{Infobox County}} within the article is to prevent infobox like this becoming vastly different from all other country articles. —MJCdetroit (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Added 'double delete for the USA infobox too.MJCdetroit (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete It only makes maintenance of the infobox's contents a little more abstract the it needs to be. --Farix (Talk) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added a similar box for the USA article for exactly the same reasons [single use, subst:'ed]. ><RichardΩ6 12 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (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:Stargate Atlantis Regulars 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

These templates got replaced with {{Stargate Characters}}, which basically does the same job better but better with less space because there is so much overlap in the shows. Already orphaned. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't these just be speedied under T3? --Tango (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will once T3 stops being "proposed" - give it a fortnight and it'll be policy :D. Happy‑melon 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent point... --Tango (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - orphaned and redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (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:Upper Paleolithic 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; linked only to talk pages. Replaced by {{Pleistocene}} — coldacid (Talk|Contrib) 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soon we'll have a CSD for these. Happy‑melon 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it can just be redirected to {{Pleistocene}} with which it is redundant. dab (𒁳) 13:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant & deprecated to Pleistocene. SkierRMH (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (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 Nairobi 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use. Replaced by {{Infobox Settlement}} — MJCdetroit (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soon we'll have a CSD for these. Happy‑melon 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - redundant & deprecated.SkierRMH (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (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:Montreal weatherbox 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused; no links. It was single use at one time. — MJCdetroit (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soon we'll have a CSD for these. Happy‑melon 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (nominations combined) JPG-GR (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2008 (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:User USCG 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 section.

The result of the debate was userfy. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Been here a year and no one is using it. Userfy if need be.. -- ALLSTARecho 01:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per established precedent. JPG-GR (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Happy‑melon 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy it, of course. Certainly it doesn't need to be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per precedent.SkierRMH (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (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.