Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 29

< May 28	May 30 >

May 29 edit

Template:Rail station 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untouched since May '06, and not used in any articles. Apparently a replacement/alternative to {{rail line}} but appears to be abandoned. Small-town hero (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as abandoned and unused template.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 31 May 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:Kiss singles 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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unsightly template which does not add useful information. No need for this list, as the singles can be easily found in discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - there exists templates such as {{Aerosmith singles}} and {{The Beatles singles}}. This template was created to reduce the size of {{Kiss}}. It serves to ease navigation between articles on the singles as well. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the risk of the standard arguments, this is a useful template. There are many Kiss articles, and the template is useful for navigation without having to keep returning to the Kiss discography article. Yngvarr (c) 01:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no need to list all the band's singles in a template. Link to Kiss discography in the {{Kiss}} template is enough.--Hopjes (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FMAFan raises or at least hints at a good point. It would be better to pursue a consensus regarding the usefulness of "singles by artist" navbox templates in general, rather than creating a tug-of-war by TFD'ing some of them while others exist and more are probably being created. Personally I think such templates would be helpful for artists/bands with more than... say, a dozen singles... for which an article exists or is likely to be written. Having said that I must admit that the current format does look like crap and ought to be sharply condensed to more closely resemble the template for Aerosmith. — CharlotteWebb 13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as re-formatted, for lack of a way to include which album each single belongs to without making the template too big or the font-size too small and for lack of any existing guideline on whether or not to have navboxes for singles by an artist or band. — CharlotteWebb 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template is much better. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:11, 6 June 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:Bibliobox 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, was removed from the one article it was ever used on as unsightly. A bulleted bibliography section is generally better than this IMO Serviam (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 31 May 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:UKproperty 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:Infobox UKproperty Harkey Lodger (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blank, useless. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I blanked to prevent use it was a bad copy that was made in error, and couldn't be repaired.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:06, 29 May 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:Navbox Airlines of India 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template was moved to Template:Airlines of India and is no longer being used. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are you proposing deletion of the template or the redirect? JPG-GR (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that of course should be the redirect. I was being lazy and using Twinkle which said it was tagging it as a RfD. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:43, 29 May 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:Email 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No conceivable use for this anytime in the near future. Mr.Z-man 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused except in one article, the 'email this page' feature is available in most browsers and such a feature would be best implemented as part of the interface rather than a template which would need to be manually added to 2000000+ articles! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:36, May 29, 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The template is not for use in mainspace, and is doing no harm. Superm401 - Talk 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An interesting idea, but not sure what use it has if it wasn't meant for the article namespace. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ned. Suggestion though, any user who would find this feature useful (and still uses an e-mail client rather than web-based) might benefit from a simple javascript/gadget to add this button to quickly send the current url to "a friend". — CharlotteWebb 13:44, 6 June 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.