Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 September 23)
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23 edit

Template:Russian submarine Kazan 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russian submarine Kazan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure of the utility of this template versus, say, a disambiguation page. I've never seen this sort of template in use for ships with the same name (and I've seen a lot of ship articles…). — Bellhalla (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Two articles and a redlink aren't enough to justify a navbox, and if it is intended as disambiguation then a hatnote should be used instead. --RL0919 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author. This template has been intended for: --Andrey! 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. To pay attention of the reader that for this ship there is a continuation of names;--Andrey! 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)At edit by the nominator the template has lost the year, showing continuation of names--Andrey! 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In some measure to stimulate participants on article writing on red link;--Andrey! 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. At a writing of article Kazan (Yankee class) to provide with its horizontal connectivity by name;--Andrey! 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How it is possible to improve this template or to reach these purposes in other ways?--Andrey! 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while I appreciate the good intentions outlined above, there isn't a need for this template, even if the redlinked article was written. It seems entirely redundant to the existing disambiguation page at Russian submarine Kazan. Robofish (talk) 13:28, 25 September 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:William & Mary bowl games 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 as unused and redundant Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:William & Mary bowl games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:William & Mary Tribe football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:William & Mary Tribe football seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have created a much more extensive and overarching template—Template:William & Mary Tribe Football—that renders this one obsolete. Jrcla2 talk 22:35, 23 September 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:Dab-talkheader 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/redirect to {{DisambigProject}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dab-talkheader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I can't for the life of me see any value in this template. All it does is add {{skip to talk}} (activated via a parameter), a hardcoded version of {{talkheader}} and {{DisambigProject}}. Both {{skip to talk}} and {{talkheader}} will seldom need to be used on disambiguation talk pages, while this template does not allow for the use of any parameters in {{DisambigProject}}. It would be better to add these templates to a talk page directly as and when they are required. PC78 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I work nowadays almost exclusively on Dabs, and the articles they draw my attention to. But i've never noticed {{DisambigProject}} parameters in use. If they are, IIRC there's no reason that they can't be emulated -- nor that that template (rather than the markup i adapted) can't be invoked from the deln candidate, if {{DisambigProject}} is modified to apply a needed optional term (SIA, hndis, perhaps Rdr, etc.) in place of "article".
    --Jerzy•t 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to add separatly when required. WOSlinker (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this new template combines two older ones that would be better separate. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here from this page, where the header read This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disambiguation (disambiguation) disambiguation page. This concludes my comment.  Skomorokh  01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    which should be distressing to only the rankest WP newcomer.
    --Jerzy•t 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{DisambigProject}} so the affected dab talkpages will retain just that banner which is actually useful, unlike the talkheader which is rarely necessary on dab pages, and the skiptotoc is pointless unless there's a ton of banners which there usually won't be on dab pages. Personally I think it's unnecessary banner-cruft, DisambigProject is all that's needed on dab pages. -- œ™ 05:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with {{DisambigProject}} per OE. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep or Move to Template:DisambigProject. Granted that the Dab talk page often is not needed, but even 1% of all Dab pages would come to over 16 thousand candidates to benefit from suitable enhancements. As to each of the three components (not in order of occurrence):
    1. (Modified project box) Attention to the content will show what in fact led me to create it, on which i commented somewhere the same day (perhaps on the talk pg of a tl that i copied from):
      it contributes to confusion abt what Dab pages are for, when you put a template on a talk page that implies the accompanying Dab pg is an article.
      When the tk pg is needed, it is usually bcz editors have taken an interest in the page but are confused about just that distinction .
    2. (Talk box) Newcomers are likely to be unfamiliar with the protocols of WP talk pages, which is IMO the most relevant function of the talk header. In particular, they include not discussing the topic on the talk page, and this advice is more valuable the less often the talk page is needed: often the first contrib on a bare Dab tk pg is along the lines of "Stout is gayyyy!!!" (Talk:Stout (disambiguation) exists, but that "contrib" is an imaginary example), and responsible, knowledgeable editors have little occasion to intervene before the "Stout Roxxxxxx!!!!" crowd decide their honor is at stake; the talk box puts due notice out front. (Do i need to cite WP:PAPER to justify text not guaranteed to be useful, or is it sufficient to note that editors are going around using AWB to create Dab tk pgs just to put the vanilla project header on them?)
    3. ({{skip to talk}} links) This template is underused (on all kinds of tk pgs) compared to the need, so making it more editor-visible and available (e.g. by parameterizing it into the tk tl if not here) is beneficial. Granted, multiple project headers are relatively rare on Dab tk pgs, but you'd be surprised how often trivial Dabs attract several, and when they occur, one editor who turns on the skips without having to know or do more than preview what changing "no" to "yes" produces, and save it with the "yes" param if that helps, will save annoyance to every succeeding reader.
--Jerzy•t 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{DisambigProject}} carries no implication that the corresponding mainspace page is an article; {{Talkheader}} is meant for use on "particuarly active" talk pages only; {{Skip to talk}} should only be used where necessary, i.e. where the number of banners on a talk page pushed the actual talk off the screen. These templates can (and should) all be placed on a talk page directly as and when they are needed. If anything this template makes things more difficult because it isn't intuitive. I can't see any justification for this template in your above comment. PC78 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • _ You're quite correct abt my error re {{DisambigProject}}: The troublesome implication
    This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the [corresponding non-talk page's title gets inserted here as a link] article.
is actually made by {{Talkheader}}.
_ Template:Talk header/doc supports your assertion about how that template is "meant to be used", but the troublesome implication shows that the 5% of the main-namespace pages that are Dabs have been largely or wholly forgotten about in this context, and i have already argued that talk pages of Dabs are different from other talk pages. You have hinted neither why it's not meant for wide use, nor whether the reasons for "meaning" it for that would apply to Dab talk pages. (The few old revisions i ran across suggest
  1. heavy concern about misleadingly turning red-link talk pages into blue ones as if discussion had begun; on one hand that would not be an issue re text piggybacking on the Dab Proj template -- even if it were not the case via templates added (at least in one case by a bot, as i mentioned above) in what may be scent-marking by WikiProject enthusiasts, seem to have already lost us that battle.
  2. momentary concern (that doesn't seem to have survived until the third contributor to the subpage weighed in) that (i paraphrase) preemptive use would deprive the template of shock value. Even if we adopt the "With Nazis, bricks and clubs get their attention a lot better than really biting satire" approach, could the 5% of Talk:-namespace titles associated with Dabs wear out the template's effectiveness on the article- and SIA-associated ones?
_ What template are you talking about? Either the markup that i always use the nom'd template with, or its own contents, should make obvious the fact that it specifically facilitates using {{Skip to talk}} only where it serves a purpose, by providing a simple switch to turn it on once need arises.
_ If you don't find it "intuitive", and don't mind calling a Dab an article, and you can remember, for all three templates,
the order of the words for, e.g., WikiProject Disambiguation's template, and
which are abbreviated, and
whether the one in question has the spaces squeezed out and/or words up-cased
why don't you continue to use the individual templates? (I don't bother remembering what the title of the nominated template is or the name of the parameter: i keep the whole markup on my clipboard manager. If you don't have one, the sample markup could appear on a corresponding /Doc for copy&pasting; subsequent editors don't have to remember anything.) But My Mileage Differs isn't a ground for deletion. My idea of intuitive is an on/off switch whose meaning, if not already grasped, becomes obvious upon throwing the switch and previewing to see what happens. Do you really prefer what amounts to a sign saying
When you find that multiple headers have made the talk page awkward, try to remember the magic word.
over relieving the memory burden on other editors, many less experienced than yourself?
(JFC, i just wasted multiple previews trying to get a link (that i must have partly typed instead of pasting) above to work; part of my problem was that Template:Talkheader is a Rdr. But beyond that, quick, what's wrong with Template:Talk header/Doc? Big hint. Moral: human memory is a limited and expensive resource; don't waste it by typing titles unnecessarily).
--Jerzy•t 05:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather long comment, but I'm afraid much of it was lost on me, particularly points #1 & 2. Can you try and articultate your arguments a little more clearly? What I think you're saying is that you regard this template as a useful shorthand to the three templates it transcludes. I disagree; it's my opinion of course, but I would think it's easier for most people to use a common template like {{skip to talk}} directly rather than having to remember the syntax of an obscure template like this. I still don't understand why you think talk headers are necessary on dab pages; regarding point #2 in your earlier comment, disambiguation talk pages are no more susceptible to vandalism and spam than any other talk page, and I don't regard a talkheader banner as being a useful deterrant to such behaviour. If you think dab pages require a distinct version of {{talk header}} then that's valid (though again, I disagree that it's necessary), but it's not something that should be attached to the project banner, and it's a discussion to be had elsewhere. PC78 (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. If some talk dab pages need a talkheader we can add it separately. Most dab pages don't need talkheader. My experience says that talk dab pages usually are not targets of many comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 30 September 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:Harpers Island 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harpers Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Partially inappropriate. Actors should not be in navboxes like that. External link should only be in the main article. If we remove actors and that we have only 3 articles well connected to each other. Magioladitis (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough closely related articles (that is, excluding the cast) to justify a navbox. (If this ends up being kept, the external link should be removed.) --RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 24 September 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:Historic buildings in Lebanon 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 deleted. Creator requested deletion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historic buildings in Lebanon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{Infobox building}}. Few uses. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose deletion it has nothing in common with building template, there are no useful alternatives giving required data, it is a relatively new infobox that is why it has few transclusions Eli+ 19:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I came here to close this as I speedy deleted it at the apparent request of the author. If that was a mistake, please note it here or leave me a message on my talk page and I'll undelete it to allow debate to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, it's already been restored. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete , this is the third time i try to post a comment on this section but it wasnt possible due to edit conflict since everyone wants a piece of me!!!! stay cool guys, i found a replacing template "Infobox Historic Site" . proceed with deletion Eli+ 20:25, 23 September 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:WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Napoleonic Fiction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Banner for long inactive project. Only used on four article talk pages, and does not record any meaningful assessment data. PC78 (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - inactive wikiproject, no sign of becoming active again any time soon. Robofish (talk) 13:22, 25 September 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:User NoWikistress 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 under CSD T3. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User NoWikistress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy of the better named Template:User No Wikistress. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete T3 as an exact duplicate of the other template. --RL0919 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 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:Linear algebra references 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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linear algebra references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Problems with this template: (a) Further reading != References, so what's with the hatnote? (b) Sources should not be in References unless the article actually utilizes them; I doubt every article using this template uses every source. I propose the template be subst-ed (minus the "See also" hatnote) and then deleted. Cybercobra (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article text coded into a template, contrary to Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage. --RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage is about text for a single article being moved to a template. If the text is included in multiple articles... that's the point of templates to begin with. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this template in the first place, and I think that it continues to serve a (marginally) useful purpose. Most introductory mathematics articles do not cite any sources at all in the text of the article, since all of the material is standard and can be found in any introductory textbook. Therefore, the usual approach is to provide a description of the subject and then reference several introductory textbooks at the end of the article (see WP:SCG#Uncontroversial knowledge). This template makes it easier to provide a good list of references for articles on topics that are typically covered in a first linear algebra course. (See the original thread on WP:WPM for more discussion of this issue). Jim (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the nominator's comments: it is standard practice in elementary science and math articles to list several general textbooks as references, in order to give the reader a choice of sources to verify the material in the article. I don't have strong feelings about this template one way or the other, but the concerns expressed in the nomination paragraph are not related to the references being in a template instead of substed into the article itself, and would not be solved by deleting the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete General references are appropriate, and used in tens of thousands of articles on all subjects, but doing this as a template is not actually a good way, as it makes it harder to customize for individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete. No need for a generic list in template form. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:18, 1 October 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:Infobox fictional artifact 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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox fictional artifact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and inappropriate "infobox" for fictional items - almost entirely inuniverse with only the creator and source being out of universe; apparently a personal creation with no discussion now being shoved in fictional item articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an infobox for Comics artifacts, such as Batman's equipment etc. but there is no generic infobox for fictional items that are present in specific series. I believe there should be a generic infobox that can be used with items from numerous TV series, this is better than creating several infoboxes for each different series.--NeilEvans (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a reasonable template to me. Any issues with excessive in-universe perspective should be correctable. Of course it should not be used on a page if there is a consensus of editors that it isn't appropriate there, but even if it is being pushed too aggressively I don't see that as a justification for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though maybe rename "Infobox fictional object". The comics analog that Neil mention uses the term "element" because that's what these things boil down to - plot elements or props. This template though seems like a reasonable, general infobox for objects describe or depicted in works of fiction that, for whatever reason, have an article. I would suggest some changes to the 'box though... such as clarifying that the item sources as "An element in the novel/series/film Foo." or "... in the Foo franchise". - J Greb (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a random selection of articles show that it's being used as a substitute for rather than an adjunct to the articles. Contrary to popular belief, it's not necessary to have an infobox to include a headline image. It also becomes problematic in the cases of crossovers, expanded universes, time-travel storylines, etc. It's not made clear whether the "first" and "last" appearances should be in-universe or out-of-universe (example: Star Trek: Enterprise was made 35 years after the original Star Trek, but is set 100 years before it). An infobox should pull out information that is useful out-of-context. In actual use, this reads less like Top Trumps than it does Magic cards. In many cases, a more appropriate name would be Template:Infobox MacGuffin. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, the articles where it is in use are a hodgepodge of things. But mostly they are franchise/story specific, the only one that is treated as a genre trope is Hoverboard. To be honest, the short fall in the template is not in that it exists, but that it needs to be edited to fix how it slants toward an in-story tone. As I noted above, one of the first things would be to clarify the "source" to spell out that this is a plot element from a show, film, book, franchise, what ever. The "first appearance" needs to move above the "In-universe" section, it also needs an air/release/publication date added. A notation about the publisher/production company is needed there as well. "Type of artifact" needs to change to "Type of plot element", "Owner" to "Element of stories featuring", "Use" to "In-story function", and "traits" and "Affiliation" lost.
      As for internal chronology... using Star Trek as an example - the communicator, as a plot element, first appears in "The Cage", produced in 1965. It doesn't matter that Star Trek: Enterprise, a prequel produced in 2001, used the same plot element, it had already been established by the earlier story. - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, the "first appearance" is out-of-universe. I notice this all-important piece of information isn't mentioned on the template documentation. I also remain unconvinced that there is a genuine need for this infobox. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this is what infoboxes are for. In many cases, the information provided is either uninformative or obvious from the article. Additionally, it has issues with 'in-universe' tone. There's simply no need for an infobox on most of these articles to provide a 'summary' of information that should be in the lead anyway. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example, look how the template is used on Ruby slippers. What on earth does it tell us that isn't repeated in the article already? Robofish (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIUC, any infobox is supposed to be a nutshell. Hit the high points of the article basically in point fashion. That does mean that the 'box will more often than not repeat the information in the article. - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Collectonian and Robofish. Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Potentially useful generic template.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ 06:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - looking at part of the discusion above, I've taken a bold swing at trying to remove the "in story" slant from the template. - J Greb (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improved--I suggest additionallyr change in the title, to ... fictional element -- which will make it more broadly useful. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it. Do real items have infoboxes? I would say weak delete (I enbolden only because everybody does). At least we can merge with the comics one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Magioladitis. No reason why a fictional item would particularly need a special infobox if nonfictional items don't have one. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:16, 1 October 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:Timeline for Jesus 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 Magioladitis (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline for Jesus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use. Too simplistic a template to expect future use. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused, abandoned (no meaningful edits since 2005 and no talk since 2008), and POV. --RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 13:18, 25 September 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:JesusTimeline 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 Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not in use. Too simplistic a template to expect future use. Redundant to the better looking (in my subjective eyes) Template:Timeline for Jesus. Which will also be nominated for deletion. I just mention it as a secondary reason for deletion. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused, abandoned (no meaningful edits since 2007 and no talk at all), and POV. --RL0919 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 13:18, 25 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_23&oldid=1138693853"