Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 5

< March 4	March 6 >

March 5, 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. However, beacuse this is redundant to Template:Infobox Futurama episode, this page will re-created as a redirect to prevent another user from making another reundant copy again. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Futurama episode

Template:Futurama episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used, redundant with {{Infobox Futurama episode}} Sherool (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant as stated, and worse looking to boot. Appears unused. Pagra shtak 15:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom KramarDanIkabu 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DaGizza^Chat ^© 08:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as per nom Jared 19:03, 7 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scandal

Delete That's a little bizarre, hopefully the text of the article or the inclusion in Category:Scandals would make it clear that the article is about a scandal. Is this to protect the eyes of innocent scandal-free children from being corrupted? Pagra shtak 13:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary. Angr/talk 09:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per above comments. Jared 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. One can read the article or often the title of the article and see that it's a scanda. Completely unnecessary. --Optichan 18:24, 10 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Pakistan

Template:Main Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Seems kind of useless to have a template for this. The only page that would really need this would be the Pakistan page, as its too general for any other page. It also is not used on any page. Template:Country Infobox seems to be the same thing, except for any generic country. Pepsidrinka 05:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks only useful for Pakistan, which is using Template:Infobox Country. Pagra shtak 13:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, not used anymore DaGizza^Chat ^© 08:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use Template:Infobox Country instead. MJCdetroit 20:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roxi2 02:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:24, 12 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state Former Confederate States

Template:Infobox U.S. state Former Confederate States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fork of Template:Infobox U.S. state except with the addition of two historical dates specific to southern states. I am against doing this sort of thing since I think there should be a consistent template for all the states. Historical information specific to one state or region should be in the article, but we should keep the infobox generic and uniform for all states. JW1805 (Talk) 05:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely agree that there should be a single infobox for all states. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adding two optional rows to Template:Infobox U.S. state would be a better solution. Side note: name contains a redundant state. Pagra shtak 13:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Consistence is better. DaGizza^Chat ^© 08:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the infoboxes for the 50 states should all be consistent, and that some other method needs to be used to include the information about them being former Confederate states. Sue Anne 06:43, 12 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 even with the extra time, there is still quite not enough consensus to delete. Perhaps you should wait until User:Mion, the creator to the template, does get back. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OTA

Template:OTA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
First, according to OTA's website there are over 150 members of this group, yet this template lists fewer than 30, with numerous inaccuracies among those currently listed including companies which have not existed for half a decade. Second, membership this "alliance" is secondary (or even tertiary) to the industry; a navigational template is overkill for tying Marriott International to Northwest Airlines on the basis of their cooperation in XML development. Third, the main article is a single sentence, so evidently even in the XML world it is not of overwhelming significance or has not attracted such attention. Fourth, I'd rather not have the precedent of creating navigational templates for relatively minor industry associations as large corporations such as these belong to dozens. Fifth, messages on the Talk page and on the creator's User_talk page are left unanswered, and thus as inaccurate as the template is now its usefulness seems likely to decrease even further in the future. -choster 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep In order of the arguments above:
1. So fix it.
2. Argument for a smaller template; you may wish to make into a cat link, like {{otherarticles}}
3. Another argument for a smaller template
4. As is this
5. If he doesn't care, it will be easier to fix it.
  - His user page says he's on vacation until 20 March. I see no rush in deleting this. Septentrionalis 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Septentrionalis 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and delete. The information is still relevant, but would be better served by a category than a bulky template, especially if there really are 150 members. Dbinder 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting. I don't normally do this with templates, but there's a good case made on both sides, but neither case is actually discussed at all so some tender, loving attentions would be appreciated. -Splash^talk 03:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't an important enough organisation for a navigational template, as Dbinder says, this is a fairly minor aspect of all these companies. I don't even think it's important enough for a category. — sjorford (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just looks like a random bag of companies with little else in common. The OTA article needs some work, though - listing the companies there might be useful. Flower party■ 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. asa per Sept.. Jared 19:05, 7 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominica infobox

Keep That template is a way better design then the other one which breaks and turns into blank code the second you change/update anything. CaribDigita 04:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roxi2 02:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:24, 12 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.