Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 24, 2006

[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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect OMG out of process!! -- Drini 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:About (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It is basically the same as Template:Otheruses4, see Template talk:Otheruses4#Redundancy with template:about?. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:46, 24 June 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 redirs don-t hurt -- Drini 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese todofuken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Obsolete. Was used to vary the look of template:Japanese prefecture before m:ParserFunctions were available. Delete. Rick Block (talk) 16:19, 24 June 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 -- Drini 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ancient Sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Contrary to WP:V, which requires use of secondary sources, not original interpretations of ancient texts. This is also being done by a sockpuppet of the banned user Iasson (evidence here; he denies it, of course).Septentrionalis 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My template primarily asks references to original ancient texts.And as long as most of the people dont know how to read the ancient sources, the template asks also translation (or translations) in english. It does NOT ask original interpretations of ancient texts !!! Isnt this clear? KymeSnake2 23:51, 24 June 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 all redirects, listed in wrong discussion --William Allen Simpson 03:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox England place redirects

[edit]

Template:Infobox England parished place (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox England parished place with map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox London Place (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox London place with map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Wales place with map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Probably qualifies for CSD - all templates were redirects that are now orphaned and unlinked. Same as Template:Infobox Wales place with map below. DJR (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they were redirects then they belong in WP:RfD, not TfD. Also, don't remove the redirect from the templates when placing the notice, it just mkaes it more confusing to those browsing to see what the template used to be.--SomeStranger(t) 19:12, 24 June 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 category's talk page (if any). 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 keep -- Drini 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coor title

[edit]

Template:Coor title d (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Coor title dm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Coor title dms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates add metadata content to the title area at the top of the page which could easily be included in the article. CG 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors should know that non-"title" versions of these templates exist (eg. Template:coor dm) (I just re-discovered them) and serve the same function as the proposed deletions--but outside of the "title" area of the article. It basically confirms my opinion above, but mitigates the "web apps" concern. Outriggr 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and I would add that putting the template "inside the article space" does not have to mean putting coordinates in-line with prose. Outriggr 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as you say, inline templates exist {{coor d}}, {{coor dm}} and {{coor dms}}. Coor title is actualy using those templates. The history of the title template is interesting too. They were implemented with tremendous success on the german and portughese wikis before the english one, and they used plain absolute positioning. Large efforts have been put to make use of style sheets instead (the monobook.css), so that the absolute position doesn't interfere with messages and other templates using the title area. Qyd 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have the other Wikipedias managed to solve the skin issues and the conflicts with other templates trying to put information in the same place? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In de and pt, title coors are still above the line, but there's not that much fuss about it. However, discussion regarding "fixing" the template should go to the template's talk page. Provied it passes {{tfd}} - Qyd 14:27, 29 June 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. Titoxd(?!?) 01:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Part-of (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't understand why this template adds metadata info at the top of the page while it could be mentioned easily within the article? CG 09:36, 24 June 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 -- Drini 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Philippine president (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not needed as Template:Infobox President does the job. Hera1187 06:57, 24 June 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 As much as we appreciate Trek contributors, Wookipedia is just another website that is non wikimedia,so should not be displayed the same way.-- Drini 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wookieepedia article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wookieepedia is not an official Wikimedia project and should not use a template in the same style. An external link should be sufficient. Rmhermen 04:10, 24 June 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.