Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 31, 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 delete ­­­Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USTop10DMAs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Without value, arbitrary, see Template_talk:USTop10DMAs Dbchip 21:13, 31 March 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, keep ­­­Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single olympic sports

[edit]

While such templates aremost appropriate for sports like archery, I utterly and totally fail to see the use to these templates that can ultimately only be put on and link to a single page. Delete all Circeus 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur, delete. A footer template is for navigation; these have no navigational purpose. --Golbez 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BRossow T/C 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These templates are intended as part of the consistent style of the Olympic sport pages. Personally, I find it a bit jarring to see most of the articles have the two templates (Olympic Games SPORT and EventsAtYEARSEASONOlympics}} but then to come across one with only of the templates. If you don't think that's good enough reason to have the templates, then fair enough I suppose, but that's the use I see for them. -- Jonel | Speak 14:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. While these templates aren't really meant for navigation (except the croquet one has a second link), I really think it makes the flow of the Olympic event pages fluent. It still signifys that it was an Olympic event on the said year, as most people who look at Olympics pages have gotten accustomed to looking at the bottom of events pages to see more info about that sport's Olympic history. I think that maybe a message should be added to the bottom saying it was only there for one year, or only some nations participated. THey should be kept though because that is how WP:OLYMPICS set it out. J@redtalk+ ubx14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks weird, but keep for consistency's sake. If nothing else, it will allow reader to navigate between "X Sport at the Summer Olympics" and "X Sport at the Y Year Olympics." tiZom(2¢) 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a sport only appeared at one games, I would hope that "X Sport at the Summer Olympics" redirects to "X Sport at the Y Year Olympics" (or vice versa) rather than having two pages with a need to navigate between them. Andrwsc 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that cricket and croquet do that. Haven't worked with the other templates, so I don't know on them. -- Jonel | Speak 04:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonel and Jared. Jfingers88 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency. Sue Anne 20:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was quite surprised when I came across one of these for the first time. It seemed like overkill to me as I use these style of templates for navigation. I feel that many of the Olympic pages are much more verbose than they need to be because of the attempt to use standard style. For example, "small" sports like these and "large" sports like Athletics have much different requirements in order to navigate through the Wikipedia information. The same situation applies to "small" countries (i.e. those that send 1 athlete to a games) and the country pages for the large teams. I am usually a strong advocate for consistency, but I think the over-use of things like navigation templates, medal tables (even if empty), etc. leads to a less-useful Wikipedia. Andrwsc 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These templates seem to take up more space than they are actually worth. Kukini 01:20, 5 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 keep ­­­Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2ft3in (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is a template which is not needed because 2'3" is always going to be 686mm, and there is no reason to modify it. There are bots which will convert units properly. It might be useful if substed, but doesn't fit in with the exercise in fancy template use which is the raison d'etre of said template and which has the undesirable effect of increasing server load. There may be others too, but they should be zapped before they breed. — Dunc| 19:18, 31 March 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 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nicaragua infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated to Template:Infobox Country form. Single use, no longer needed.--- MJCdetroit 17:53, 31 March 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 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hot chicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unencyclopdic template - of no use in building an encyclopedia. The actual project page has long since gone to BJOADN, but the template itself is still kicking around... CLW 16:17, 31 March 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 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was an outdated copy of the Template:Infobox Country for single use. It was updated and place inside the NZ article for easier editing. Copy not needed. MJCdetroit 14:39, 31 March 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, Instantnood's suggestions makes little sense ­­­Circeus 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Replaced by Template:Infobox University and depopulated. Only remaining links are non-inclusions on Talk and User pages. BRossow 01:20, 31 March 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 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This seems like a really petty thing to have a template for. If a grammatical fix is so disputed, then it can be disputed on the talk page. If the one reverting the fix refuses to discuss it, that user can be warned concerning WP:3RR. Also, it adds the page to a non-existent category, so even if this is not deleted, that much should be fixed. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 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.