Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24

Template:Scotland infobox

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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template had a fair use image violation which I removed. I also pushed all of the code from the template into the Scotland article. Durin 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was not aware that this was a general policy. But now I know. Why is it policy though? --Mais oui! 18:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any particular policy regarding single use templates. It does appear to be convention though, and it's exercised. {{Australia infobox}} was recently deleted (not by me) on the same grounds, but without discussion here. I brought this one in accordance with instructions to do so, since a template being single use or unused is not a speedy criteria for templates. I think it's generally good form though to handle infoboxes like this. --Durin 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's generally good form though to handle infoboxes like this" - OK, but why? --Mais oui! 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think scale. Some articles could potentially devolve into a series of templates, just to assemble the article into a coherent form. The infobox on Scotland is about one article and one only. The point of templates is to have a replicateable set of code. From Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page". --Durin 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt reply. That makes sense. --Mais oui! 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once migration to {{Infobox Country}} is complete (see Talk:Scotland#Infobox country). Thanks/wangi 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use template:Infobox Country. — Dunc|☺ 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't use {{Infobox Country}} as it is not relevant to constituent countries and has some awful code. However, a solution has been found. --Bob 00:39, 25 August 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.

Template:Botswana infobox

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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant/unused (I checked for subst's as well). SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Bob 00:01, 31 August 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.

Template:Bordeaux infobox

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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant/unused (I checked for subst's as well). SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Bob 00:01, 31 August 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.

Template:Unfairblock

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 delete: Created by banned user. —Centrx→talk • 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes an opinion about a block look officially sanctioned. If you have a problem with a block, take it up personally with the blocking admin. FreplySpang 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person involved can talk to the blocking admin, contest the block via template:unblock or bring the issue up at AN/I. No need for this. Charon X/talk 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are much more direct and effective ways of discussing or contesting a block. --Interiot 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment noticed this on an AOL ip page, template doesn't make any sense, IPs can't have autoblocks, so putting an autoblock link on an IP page is pure nonsense. Autoblocks come from usernames not IPs, whoever wrote this doesn't seem to know what an autoblock is--205.188.116.10 15:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many cases where users tries to ask for unblock but blocking user refuses.
Speedy Delete - CSD G5. The template was created by an EddieSegoura (banned user, "exicornt vandal") puppet. The above keep vote from an AOL ip is his too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above user has a history of fighting with EddieSegoura like two peas in a pod. Bunchofgrapes voted to delete because s/he suspects the author and block him. No hard evidence. When will they ever get along?
Don't change other people's comments, Eddie. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Interiot.Felixboy 18:34, 24 August 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.