Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 19
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 October 19)
| < October 18 | October 20 > |
|---|
October 19
[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 keep y'all. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Created to replace {{Irishphoneoperators}} when it could have just been modified accordingly. Рэдхот 15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep unless you want to migrate the information of the mobile phone companies into the phone operators. You haven't merged the two, so you'll lose info if this is deleted. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Niall123 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Single use template, must exist a better template for discography than this one. →AzaToth 21:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently was created specifically for Shin Jung-hyeon Discography, the only article that uses it. EVula 19:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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 what he said (delete) // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Orphan template, don't know if it would ever have any practical use. →AzaToth 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion template which does not reflect the speedy deletion rules. WP:UM is not policy, does not have consensus, and certainly is not a CSD. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- {{Db-not a CSD rule}}. Another unwarranted attempt to push through the removal of userboxes, methinks. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Insofar as I can see, the current GUS templates are fine, and this one is unneeded. If a speedy deletion is needed, a normal {{db|....}} template will do. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per ikiroid. A template would only get this if it is about to be deleted (meaning all instances have already been fixed), so having a userbox-specific DB tag is unnecessary. EVula 19:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- CSD G6 is intended for non-controversial maintanance tasks. By their very nature, userbox debates are controversial, so they don't fall under speedy deletion. Ergo, this template is not needed. Delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if all transclusions have been updated, such a deletion is not controversial, though (as it is, in effect, an unlinked template that nobody uses). That said, I don't feel that G6 actually covers old userboxes. Perhaps we could have a new CSD template criteria added instead? EVula 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that would constitute instructional creep. When it's been orphaned and all that, just ask an admin to delete it. Go for rogue if a normal admin won't do it. Like WP:GUS proclaims, it's not a policy: Just do it. I think we can apply that to userboxes after they've been fully migrated to usersapce. Hbdragon88 06:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Plenty of rouges will honor these requests on the talk page for CAT:GUS btw.... — xaosflux Talk 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that would constitute instructional creep. When it's been orphaned and all that, just ask an admin to delete it. Go for rogue if a normal admin won't do it. Like WP:GUS proclaims, it's not a policy: Just do it. I think we can apply that to userboxes after they've been fully migrated to usersapce. Hbdragon88 06:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if all transclusions have been updated, such a deletion is not controversial, though (as it is, in effect, an unlinked template that nobody uses). That said, I don't feel that G6 actually covers old userboxes. Perhaps we could have a new CSD template criteria added instead? EVula 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Single use template, don't know exactly it's purpouse (Talent people?) →AzaToth 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Only used in Takaaki Ishibashi, there are many other templates which are much more specific that work the same way (i.e. ones for musicians and film stars). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per ikiroid. Unnecessarily (and vaguely) specific infobox. EVula 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Specific infobox not used anywhere else; can easily be replaced with existing templates with better construction. Shiori 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This template has been superceded by an infobox on the page Galicia (Spain). LittleDantalk 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The template and infobox share the same information. The template is unlikely to be used elsewhere than Galicia (Spain), so I reckon there's no need to keep it.--Húsönd 00:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. {{Autonomous community}} displays the same information in a much more attractive manner, making this obsolete. EVula 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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.