Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 24

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24, 2006

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador is served by rebroadcasters of the very same TV stations that serve St. John's, as are dozens of other Newfoundland communities. The one local station it did have is now a pure rebroad itself and has been for some time. BBM considers the province a single market. I appreciate User:MapleLeafFan04's affection for the subject, but taken to its extreme, it would mean most Canadian TV station pages would be cluttered with templates representing every rebroad area. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and while at it, merge all the various Maritime TV templates (Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton, Chaleur Bay, Charlottetown, Halifax and Sydney off the top of my head) into one as well. Kirjtc2 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic comment: Given that the CBC stations do have different local news, one per province should suffice. Having said that I believe the rule is "use originating market only", i.e. don't use PEI TV on CKCW-TV. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator has removed template from station pages on which it was used. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:15, 27 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was subst and delete. Pagra shtak 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FEUbox

Subst and Delete MiraLuka 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete as per above. --Domthedude001 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete as per above. Howard the Duck | talk, 13:25, 28 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ImpersonatorProven

Template:ImpersonatorProven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused according to What Links Here and Google. I can't find any talk about it's creation. None of the categories that pages would use if they were tagged with this have any text on them[1], so I'm guessing it's redundant. SeventyThree^(Talk) 10:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unlike with sockpuppetry it is obvious whether a user is impesonating someone else or not. Thryduulf 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this would be a good template... but where would it go? --Domthedude001 21:52, 25 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagra shtak 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atmospheric sciences

Looks strikingly similar to the summarily rejected Root page family of templates and other paraphernalia that were deleted nearly unanimously in various venues. — Apr. 24, '06 [10:08] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Keep. --Domthedude001 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that Atmospheric sciences could do with a lot of work but the subfields in this template are closely related but distinct. As such it is good to have a way of linking them together.--NHSavage 19:56, 25 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under CSD A2 (even though it's not an article, i think it applies.) Circeus 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comuna of Chile

Template:Comuna of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is in a foreign language, and refers to a template which has never existed (nonexistant, no deletion log). I'm guessing it was moved from a different language wikipedia, and then forgotten about. Not used according to what links here. Only one editor - I've notified him on his talk page. SeventyThree^(Talk) 07:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:16, 27 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was userfy Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

I'm relisting this template on TfD per the deletion review decision. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Pointless but harmless. Acceptable as "workspace decoration". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Harmless is not an inclusion criteria in Wikipedia. Pointless is most definitely a deletion criteria, though. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't try to shift the burden of proof. I don't have to give a reason to keep, you have to give a reason to delete. That's what assume good faith means. Encyclopedia standards don't apply in user space. And don't use the lame-ass excuse that it's in template space. No one reads template space as such. What's relevent is where it's expanded -- since it's always expanded in user space, user space rules apply. Lefty 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This thing is in Template: space, not userspace. Don't believe me? It has Template: right in front of it. --Cyde Weys 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, keep in some form anyway, even if its not in the template mainspace. I'll give some points for this going to a in-process TFD, and I'll call a userfy acceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humorous boxes don't appear in the encyclopedia and improve user morale, thus improving the encyclopedia. Lefty 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Real life is raising its ugly head and I won't be responding for a few days.)[reply]
Userfy by substing - as it isn't helpful, it doesn't belong in the main template space - harmless in userspace.--Doc ^ask? 10:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Substing is a piss-poor alternative. It's difficult to read, difficult to edit, and difficult to update. What you're suggesting is to throw up roadblocks to users' customization of pages, and you need to have a better reason than personal distaste. Assume good faith. Lefty 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said! --Dragon695 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy harmless, yet now that its being graded for actual templateness rather than being looked at through speedy delete standards, I suppose it wouldn't be very legal for it to remain a template rather than something in userspace. Homestarmy 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - harmless, but not encyclopedic. Keep in the user namespace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless joke. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harmless joke" is not an inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Lefty said above. But soon it won't matter anyway. Misza 13 ^{T C} 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with userfy as a vaguely acceptable alternative. Such a colossal waste of time. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So quit wasting our time by deleting harmless user boxes. Lefty 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless joke. --Domthedude001 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harmless joke" is not an inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Lefty said above. But soon it won't matter anyway. Misza 13 ^{T C} 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, but definitely does not belong in the Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trash, or userfy if you must. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who am I to decide what's funny and what's not? If some people get their jollies out of this, I won't begrudge them that. TheJabberwʘck 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, a bit silly but ultimately harmless. --Eastlaw 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. --GunnarRene 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— nath a nrd o tcom ^{(T • C • W)} 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is chucked out because it's pointless, surely there are plenty of other userboxes that will have to go with it? HilJackson 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? the wub "?!" 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastblock, Misza13, Domthedude, Sjakkalle, nathanrdotcom, Hijackson, Bagel7, myself -- and that's just the people who voted here. I'm not counting the people who've included it, or the creators of other humorous boxes, et al. I'm not going to do all your research. Lefty 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I know you meant the question rhetorically, but rhetorical questions fails if the point is wrong. P.P.S. WP:AGF[reply]
KEEP! this userbox is the best! - Bagel7 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless joke. --Dragon695 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy due to waste of server resources :) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:34, 1 May 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Line 1 Green

Template:Line 1 Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I found this with a TFD tag, but not listed here. It looks like the only edit was in December 2004, which is strange (it would mean creation and tfd in one edit). Unused by what links here. No vote SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redundant to {{MTL Metro Green}}. TimBentley (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a redirect would be fine. TimBentley (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, redundant to {{MTL Metro Green}}. --Domthedude001 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, redundant. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --GunnarRene 06:43, 2 May 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Div 60

Delete - As one of the others who edited it I endorse this deletion. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 22:50, 26 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marseille infobox

Template:Marseille infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (what links here + google); replaced in Marseille by {{Large French Cities}}. SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:20, 25 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Madeira

Template:Madeira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (by what links here), and redundant with {{Municipalities of Madeira}} (which is more inclusive). SeventyThree^(Talk) 00:54, 24 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RahXephon infobox

Template:RahXephon infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Meta-template that attempted to take the Template:Infobox animanga out of the article RahXephon. It was only used in the RahXephon article and has no potential of being used in any other article. It also made it more difficult for editors who wanted to modify the contents of the infobox. TheFarix (Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made in the same spirit as Template:Republic_of_China_infobox. That template is not used on any other Article namespace pages either. The Template:RahXephon infobox has the potential of being used if RahXephon:Pluralitas Concentio, RahXephon_(manga) warrant creation. Delete until then. Also see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_infoboxes#Search_engine_appearance. --GunnarRene 08:42, 24 April 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russia infobox

This template needs deletion because it is a single-article infobox, and is not used even in the article on Russia.--Brendenhull (talk) | 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. -- MJCdetroit 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet per nom. the wub "?!" 22:57, 27 April 2006 (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 page.