Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

December 24

Template:Dynamic navigation box nested

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 by Fang Aili. Whisp e ring 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic navigation box nested is a forked off copy of a historical version of {{Dynamic navigation box}}. But it turns out that there is a functionally equivalent template {{Navigation}}. For why it the TFD nominee is created in the first place, see Template talk:Dynamic navigation box#Problem with Template:NZR Lines. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:49, 24 December 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:Templates

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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template infers that articles need a certain amount of templates, and ironically, by placing this template, any article with this template gains another template. While I realize that templates can improve articles, I can't really foresee the need to place a notice with such a vast generalized call for more templates to an article; the template would neither help improve the article nor inform the reader that the article is lacking in other aspects, given that templates are meta-data. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up its supposed to be ironic, merry Christmas Ajuk 22:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? You mean it's a joke? I agree with Flcelloguy it seems a bit pointlessBuc 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the template be userfied, or moved into a user subpage, then? That way, the humor and irony would still be there, but the template would not appear to be an "official" cleanup template. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles should use templates if they need them, not for the sake of using them. J Di ^talk 16:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. We shouldn't have this bogus template for people to use like this, this, and this. WODUP 17:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, unneeded. There is no "template quota" (that I know of...) --Will Mak 050389 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary and in no conceiveable way helpful in building an encyclopedia. I would support a speedy deletion, too. -- Kicking222 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made me chuckle though, entered that one into BJAODN. doco (☏) 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if I remember correctly there's a similar template on Uncyclopedia... --Ouro 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there's only one for images. But unlike this template, that one is funnier. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kind of confusing. There is no need to have the template placed on an article, this is what the discussion pages are for. — Arjun 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Reminds me of Template:User no boxes. >Radiant< 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless. What was the point of this template other then as a bad joke? --TheFarix (Talk) 19:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eat.. I should make something like this on Uncyclopedia. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or BJAODN. What happens if an article's tagged with this and {{User:Jnc/TooManyBoxes}} at the same time? --ais523 16:20, 30 December 2006 (U T C)

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:Lyriki

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 speedydeleted by Sean Black . Whisp e ring 18:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encourages contributory copyright infringement. See WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. Mike Dillon 18:31, 24 December 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:Infobox Windows Live

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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a copy of {{Infobox Software}}, but modified to put a fair use image into articles. The image's use violated fair use criterion eight. I've removed the image, so the template is now just an inferior copy. J Di ^talk 13:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologise for not reading the Fair Use criterion 9, and thanks for removing the image. However, I think the template is not redundant because Windows Live services are not actually "softwares" and hence should have its own specialised Infobox to centralise and provide an overview of the individual services. At the moment it is the same as {{Infobox Software}} as I am still experimenting how to modify the codes. However, I'd like to point out that many fields in {{Infobox Software}} are redundant and irrelevant to Windows Live services (most of them are not really "softwares") and I am still trying to figure out a better layout and the correct fields to include/modify. This may also require a little bit of time as most Windows Live pages will have to be edited (and it's Christmas). So I'd request for the Template not to be deleted but kept as the same as now for the time being. Any suggestions for the template is also welcome. Thank you very much. Pikablu0530 14:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The template would need to be modified way too much before it would be useful in every Windows Live article. There are already other infoboxes for articles about other things that would work perfectly well in Windows Live articles, including {{Infobox Website}} for websites. J Di ^talk 14:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... no, Delete; there isn't enough that's unique about Windows Live that it would merit a template distinct from {{Infobox Software}} and {{Infobox Website}}. -/- Warren 21:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that the logo is removed from the template, it is functionally identical to {{Infobox Software}}. Comment Even if the logo were in public domain, Infobox Windows Live should be just a wrapper to {{Infobox Software}} instead of copying-and-pasting code. A wrapper would ensure consistency. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; use software instead. Ral315 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 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:Plated shield 3d

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 author's request. Kimchi.sg 05:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used - failed implementation in exit lists • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator nominated his own template. What else do I need to say? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is speedy deletion as G7 since the only author has requested deletion. I have tagged it as such. --69.156.205.133 05:31, 26 December 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:Plated shield 2d

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 author's request. Kimchi.sg 05:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used - failed implementation in exit lists • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator nominated his own template. What else do I need to say? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as G7 for the same reason as the last one. --69.156.205.133 05:34, 26 December 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.