Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

March 9 edit

Template:New Zealand 2000 Rugby League World Cup Squad 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. Replaced. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by standard type Template:New Zealand squad 2000 Rugby League World Cup. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete- per the nomination. AndreNatas (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - What is wrong with this template? Londo06 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - looked through, new template already set up to replace this one, fits in with others already out there, information is the same, the older one is now no longer used, redundant and should be deleted.Londo 06 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - why not redirect? Seems like a plausible option, too. Since the current template is still in use (albeit only on a few articles) it would remove any need to update links, too. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 19:13, 10 March 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 Aust school 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 keep. John254 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very similar to the infobox school template, and serves the same purpose.. STYROFOAM1994^{Don't age bias me!} 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There were discussions about merging this template (and Template:Infobox Aust school private) with Template:Infobox school back in November 07 [1], which tend to suggest that the infobox is worthy of being kept. Twenty Years 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One almost needs a university degree to figure out Infobox School, I think that the consensus of Australian education editors that Infobox Aust school is a better alternative is a reasonable one. It definitely isn't a case of redundancy of one for another. Orderinchaos 06:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twenty Years and Orderinchaos comments - no need to delete something that is a useful alternative Satu Suro 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with for usability, and I would also ask the nominator to go back and add the template back to the article they removed it from. Fosnez (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rollback helped with that one. Several hundred reverts later, we were back where we started. Twenty Years 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, similar, but superior (due to simplicity). That's a lot of "S"es. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Infobox School is a disaster, while this infobox works beautifully for Aust public school articles (and looks a hell of a lot better). If it aint broke, dont fix it! Loopla (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per consensus here that this template does its job better than the proposed alternative. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above me. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all of above. Has there ever been any thought of merging Template:Infobox school into this template, instead of the other way around, because I haven't yet seen a template which is totally impossible to use and user-unfriendly, until I saw that one. --Russavia (talk) 03:25, 14 March 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.