Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 16, 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 Speedy deleted. Note, I'm not an admin, this is just book-keeping already deleted templates. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, orphaned, unencyclopedic. Gerrit CUTEDH 21:29, 16 May 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 deleted by user:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, orphaned. {{UK ties}} is used in the United Kingdom article. Thanks/wangi 20:09, 16 May 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 deleted by user:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, orphaned. {{UK ties}} is used in the United Kingdom article. Thanks/wangi 20:09, 16 May 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 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template "places a small Japan Article symbol (Torii icon) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is an article related to Japan" - see Operation Ten-Go for an example.

It is likely to conflict with the {{featured article}} star. It - and any others of its ilk - should be deleted for the same reason as the {{good article}} symbol: we do not clutter up the main article space with this sort of metadata. These articles should be identified, if need be, by a template on the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you just unintentionally introduced me to a new feature! Now I can check to see if an article is well-researched before I even click the talk page!! Thanks! -Aknorals 09:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I clarified where the template should be used (on the template itself). It should never be used in the main article namespace (and therefore won't ever interfere with the Good Article icon). This was clarified on the WikiProject Japan page, but I forgot to update the description on the template itself. I've also removed it from the Operation Ten-Go article as it shouldn't have ever been placed there. This template is only to be used on project articles (such as the notice board, etc.) which are part of WikiProject Japan in order to provide a quick way of identifying them and a quick way to return to the main project page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a little easier for me to vote keep if the template was called something like Project Japan article. That would also stop all the people who don't read the descriptions from adding it to their articles as well.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with renaming it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that this is not intended to appear in main article space - however, I strongly doubt that adding a little icon to the talk page is the right thing to do either - isn't {{WikiProject Japan}} a better solution? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the talk pages only, and mainly for articles in the main namespace. This puts a tiny icon in the top right corner of the project article itself, which makes it easier for people to easily find other Japan-related projects. There are getting to be quite a few of them, and this makes it much easier to find all of them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which sort of articles is this being added to, other than ones in the main article space? Perhaps some sort of category would be better? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... in addition... There are multiple sub-projects of WP-Japan. Rather than including *two* box headers. So it's also a space saver. --Kunzite
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 speedy close as impossible. — sjorford++ 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless and proposes cruelty toward fish QuizQuick 15:12, 16 May 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 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space.QuizQuick 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I find your objection offensive. This isn't the 700 Club. We aren't here to stupid-proof Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 23:22, 18 May 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 Speedy deleted. Note, I'm not an admin, this is just book-keeping already deleted templates. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User dy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created ere I found out another likewise category and "userbox" had existed for some time. I propose it for deletion, as well as its category. --Svippong 13:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a ton of spelling errors, you shouldn't be changing articles. --mboverload@ 00:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can still fight vandalism, though, as at least one of our highly dyslexic contributors does. Ashibaka tock 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very true and a good point. I retract my previous statement. --mboverload@ 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you do. I know some very intelligent dyslectic people whose expertise could be handy here. A dumbass like me can always copyedit the article created by a dyslectic genius :-) Friendly Neighbour 07:21, 17 May 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 deleted by User:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Avatars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A license tag that is a combination of "Fair use" and "I found it on the internet". The height of insanity, plus it is unused. Dr Zak 13:26, 16 May 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 deleted by User:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blockquote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is a orphan and is simple a shorthand (</blockquote><blockquote>). Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=) --mboverload@ 01:06, 17 May 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. Feel free to redirect this to {{spam}} for use on user-talk pages only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoSpam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A template that requests people not to spam - WP:BEANS. Should not be used, ever. Raul654 00:51, 16 May 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bryan Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sorry but template-cruft. The information in the template is already listed in the TOC on the Singer page, so it isn't really needed there. On the film pages, the director is already listed in the infobox at the top or in the first sentence or two. It serves no purpose and starts a bad trend. What next... individual templates for all the involved actors in a film? For the writers? composers? AlistairMcMillan 17:14, 16 May 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.