Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8 edit

Template:Atlag United Methodist Church/AtlagUMC Information 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! 04:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable church, no claims of notability, the article was written to look like the church's personal website and not an encyclopedia article, and this is part of the design of that look. Even if the church is notable, why does it need its own template instead of just an infobox inside the article? — Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to Template:Infobox religious building.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, redundant template. Besides, it's already orphaned as the original article was AFD'ed (and deleted) just recently. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:03, 14 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:Infobox Water 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! 10:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical single purpose template. Not used anywhere anymore. — Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck it. Wiki doesn't need clutter such as this. BobAmnertiopsis _{ChitChat Me!} 02:17, 15 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:Infobox neighborhood 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 Redirect Happy‑melon 10:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be merged with Template:Infobox Settlement. — Gary King (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest replacing Template:Infobox neighborhood with Template:Infobox Settlement, because:

They appear to do the same thing
The Settlement template is well maintained and documented whereas the Neighborhood template is not
The Settlement template is used on a few thousand pages whereas the Neighborhood template is used on only a few hundred

It looks like every field that is in the Neighborhood template exists in the Settlement template already, so simply replacing the Neighborhood template with a redirect to the Settlement template should suffice. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Template:Infobox Settlement, per nom. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suppose. Is it possible for a bot to replace all the neighborhood templates with settlement ones, after/if such a switch occurs? BobAmnertiopsis _{ChitChat Me!} 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then Redirect to Infobox Settlement, this is done for many infoboxes of this type. {{Infobox Town}}, {{Infobox Village}}, {{Infobox Municipality}} all redirect to Infobox Settlement. However, I'd be happy with a delete too. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:09, 15 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:DARD 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! 07:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues to Template:DCAL, below: some of the details here would be fine in an article on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, but there is no need for a template to splat them over related articles. This template could be regarded as a recreation (with revisions) of Template:Drdminister, which was one of a number of similar templates created by the same editor, Nanometre (talk · contribs). All those templates were deleted at TFD April 29.

One of the features of this template is that it lists all members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, which a parliamentary committee (like a Select committee) which scrutinises the work of the department. The committee has no executive role in the Department, let alone in any public bodies sponsored by the department, and a list of the committee's membership does not belong on the article about the dept, let alone on any public bodies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As below, there are too many templates as it is for NI politicians/civil servants. This one doesn't add anything to articles. Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 9 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:DCAL 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, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this template when it was placed on Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI). The details it records of the structure of the Northern Irish Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure department would be fine in the article on that department, but have no place in article on PRONI, which is an arms-length public body.

This template could be regarded as a recreation (with revisions) of Template:Dcalminister, which was one of a number of similar templates created by the same editor, Nanometre (talk · contribs). All those templates were deleted at TFD April 29. . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRONI is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) and is part of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: See here.--Nanometre (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here--Nanometre (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanometre, please re-read what you just wrote. It's a "Non-Departmental Public Body", not a "part of the department". It is sponsored by DCAL, but that's a difft matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are too many templates as it is for NI politicians/civil servants. This one doesn't add anything to articles. Scolaire (talk) 10:51, 9 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:Uw-reported uaa 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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a legitimate use for this template within the username policy. When a username clearly needs to be blocked, you just put it on WP:UAA and it gets blocked. In more borderline cases, you try to talk to the user about your concern with their username, perhaps using a template such as {{uw-username}}. This template seems to be an equivalent of {{uw-username}} (much of the wording is the same) for impatient people who prefer to go straight to UAA instead of waiting for a response.

I interpret this template as saying "Welcome. I have a concern about your username. You don't get to respond to this concern, because I've already put you on the list of people to be blocked. But I've at least made my token effort to be friendly."

A good UAA report will be handled within a few minutes. At that point, the user will get a block message, and if it's a softblock, it will tell them about changing their username, making the {{uw-reported uaa}} message fully redundant. A bad UAA report will also be removed in a few minutes, at which point the template message would be misinformative. A questionable report might have either of the previous outcomes, or it might stick around for a bit while we dither, but we don't want templates that encourage people to make questionable reports while pretending to be welcoming to the user they're reporting.

In short, it's useless and insincere to welcome users after you report them to be blocked, which is what this template encourages doing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The first part of the template reads like "Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, you should be blocked by the time you finish reading this." Mr.Z-man 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did c&p from uw-username because I didn't have time to create a whole new template and decided to improve it later. It's not supposed to be for impatient people, but instead for blatant violations (e.g. ISuckYourMamasCock!), telling them that you have reported them at UAA, so they do not get a sudden block notice and not know why...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 18:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block notice will say why. I don't think we need to worry about giving User:ISuckYourMamasCock a warning 30 seconds before they get blocked. The fact that this template exists encourages making questionable UAA reports ("at least I warned them!"). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think this is a particularly helpful template, and (if the UAA request is refused) could be downright misleading. Terraxos (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's along the same lines as the "Hi, I just reported you to WP:AIV" anti-vandalism templates we delete occasionally. Anomie ⚔ 13:39, 18 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:Infobox HonorverseShipClasses 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 - Nabla (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that used this template have all been deleted. Articles not likely to be recreated.. --EEMIV (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Dotz Holiday/deleted honorverse articles for transwiki to Honorverse wiki.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:03, 9 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:Insomniacp 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. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use for the template. The project says to put {{playstationp|Insomniac=yes}} on talk pages. Now nothing links to it. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Playstationdude (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Delete the sucker. BobAmnertiopsis _{ChitChat Me!} 02:15, 15 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:Npa6 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 - Nabla (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete superseded template. Unused and NPA policy is now different. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 8 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:Drmafd5 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 both - Nabla (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete template, superseded with standardized user warnings project. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 8 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:Bbblock 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete template, superseded with standardized user warnings project. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 8 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.