Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 23

< June 22	June 24 >

June 23 edit

Template:Define 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Define (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is completely unused symbol. In mathematics the standard symbol for definition is ":=". Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it quite often, almost as often as Magioladitis's "standard" symbol. It's a good thing we have it available. Keep Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then why is not tralnscluded in any article? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, like many useful templates, nobody knows it exists. The next time I see a definition with a mere equals sign, I'll use it. Note to closer: in addition to the logic page that links to this, there should be a place in WP:Messages for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've seen it used frequently, also. Perhaps if it were referred to in one of the WikiProject Math pages, it might get more use here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since no articles actually use this symbol, it appears to be a template without a purpose. Moreover, we should say in words when an equality is by definition, rather than relying on notation. See [[1]] and [[2]] for some previous discussions. This particular implementation is particularly bad because it uses an image for something where an ordinary font symbol (=) would be fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen this usd off-Wiki. Not much used on-Wiki because not well publicised. Now that I know it exists, I can see situations where I would use it and find it useful. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Taku pointed out on WT:WikiProject_Mathematics, the template is pretty useless as it cannot be used inside a math formula, which is just about the only place where one would want to use it. Moreover, the actual LaTeX code is trivial to write down directly in the case one needs it. — Emil J. 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a standard symbol, but it is impossible to use it properly as a template because it should only appear inside <math> tags and in an indented display on its own line. The math MoS rightly discourages inline TeX, and if the rest of the formula is not TeX then the result will be particularly bad. Ozob (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ozob. If it's surrounded by non-TeX stuff it looks horrible ("i² ${\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}$ −1"). I disagree that the actual LaTeX code is "trivial", and this template would be useful if it could be transcluded within <math> tags; but MediaWiki won't expand templates there, since {{ is so likely to be used in TeX for a different purpose. Of course, I'm not opposed to the use of this symbol (which I personally like more than ":=", but maybe that's just because I am a physicist and not a mathematician and because I hate Pascal), so I'm going to add an example to WP:TEX showing how to produce it. (BTW, for inline formulas there's the character "≝", but I'm afraid most fonts lack a glyph for it.) --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

\stackrel already is documented on Help:Displaying a formula. — Emil J. 15:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have pointed out, this template doesn't produce acceptable results, so it's irrelevant whether or not the symbol itself is useful. --Zundark (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, template that should not be used, as explained by A. di M. and others. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (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:Globis 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 discussion was Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Globis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unlinked, unused, appears to be vanity. *** Crotalus *** 18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add misspelled. But the real charge here is that this is a random snippet of prose, which is not what templates are supposed to be. Delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article masquerading as a template. Do not move to mainspace in its present state, as it would be speedy deleted under criterion A7 (no assertion of significance or importance). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or... because this is an article masquerading as a template, speedy delete per CSD A7. I have tagged the article accordingly so that the speedy deletion may be reviewed by at least one more person. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:37, 23 June 2009 (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:Haunch 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 discussion was wrong venue. Talk pages may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion; however, since this is the talk page of an existing article, I would suggest replacing the content of the talk page with something more useful (I see that it already has a WikiProject banner) rather than nominating it for deletion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Haunch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Empty talk page with recent test edits by anon. Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I intended to nominate Talk:Haunch for deletion. --Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (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:Legaia series 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legaia series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navigation template; there are only two games in this series, and no plans to make any more. Per WP:NAV, navigational templates "should not be too small. A navigation template with less than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections, or relevant {{main}} and {{see also}} links within the articles' sections." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:33, 23 June 2009 (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:Current UK MPs 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current UK MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

States it's a draft template, but even so. A really really bad idea. A template including all of the members of the House of Commons would lead to a ridiculously big template. Better served as a list. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only to unify the articles of current MPs, and we already have a list of last MPs elected/transferred in 2005. At least the template will be organized and out of sight. --Toussaint (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (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:New Zealand Radio Markets 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand Radio Markets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused since 2007. A better equiv template is at Template:New Zealand radio networks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:59, 23 June 2009 (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:New Zealand abbr 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand abbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serves no purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It is much simpler to type "NZ" (2 keystrokes) rather than to transclude (20 keystrokes) or subst (26 keystrokes) this template. I want to think that it served a purpose at one time, but what that purpose was I cannot imagine. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:14, 23 June 2009 (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:NRL New Zealand 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRL New Zealand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serves no purpose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting the nom's assertion, but please note that this is one of 25 similar templates in Category:National Rugby League templates. Perhaps they all should be included in a single nomination... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:17, 23 June 2009 (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 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 discussion was speedy delete (criterion G7: author requested deletion). For future reference, please note that editors can request deletion of pages which they have created and to which others have not made major edits by tagging the pages with {{db-g7}} or {{db-author}}. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Author nomination. Unneeded template created outside of WP:WikiProject Flag Template procedures
— Ω (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (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:SFC 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 discussion was speedy delete (criterion G7: author requested deletion). For future reference, please note that editors can request deletion of pages which they have created and to which others have not made major edits by tagging the pages with {{db-g7}} or {{db-author}}. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SFC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Author nomination. Unneeded template created outside of WP:WikiProject Flag Template procedures
— Ω (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (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.