Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

August 15

Template:UsernameConcern

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 to {{uw-username}}. Mike Peel 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{uw-username}}. The uw template is in coordination with The User Warnings Wikiproject.. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Probably a better idea to just redirect. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GrooveDog. Arky^¡Hablar! 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to: {{uw-username}}. Tcrow777 talk 21:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect will not hurt. Carlosguitar 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect better idea. Dfrg.msc 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everybody else. No reason to delete it outright. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{uw-username}}. Cheers, Lig hts 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{uw-username}}. Hydrogen Iodide 17:56, 22 August 2007 (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 section.

Template:Little Lebowski Urban Achievers roster

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 DragonflySixtyseven. WODUP 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only use is in the article Little Lebowski Urban Achievers, which is up for deletion here. Ckatz^chat _spy 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article above is a pretty obvious WP:HOAX, so when it is deleted, the template needs to go as well. —Travis ^talk 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom and TravisTX above. GlassCobra 02:21, 16 August 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox Village DE NRW

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently single use; and redundant to more generic settlement templates, with which that one use should be replaced. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's points. –sebi 10:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be replaced with either the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} or its sister template: {{Infobox German Location}}. —MJCdetroit 01:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just switched the single page using this template to the German Location template. - 52 Pickup 06:09, 16 August 2007 (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 section.

Template:Village pump (header bar)

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely redundant to the navbox that appears within Template:Villagepumppages. Suggest deletion. --Quiddity 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, from what it looks like to me, it doesn't have much of a purpose, other than to link to pages already linked on {{Villagepumppages}}. –sebi 07:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. >Radiant< 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, and the other navbox looks so much cooler. Harryboyles 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only useful to lazy scrollers with short viewports; looks untidy next to the links at the top of the other template. Adrian M. H. 15:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the other incarnations are a good idea; this one, however, is redundant to {{villagepumppages}}, as explained in the nom. statement. Anthøny 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Harryboyles et. al. Shalom ^Hello 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we delete the other “cooler” navbox instead. This one takes up less space and doesn't have the unnecessary image and post links. — The Storm Surfer 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this template looks messy/confusing next to the "Skip to: ..." navbar directly below it. And isn't prominent enough without the size/image of the traditional navbox. --Quiddity 03:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty subjective. I think the other option looks messier, and I don't find it confusing. You might be right about prominence, but I'm not really sure. Is it necessary for the navbox on the village pump subpages (which is what they are, despite the naming convention) to be prominent? Don't people looking for a village pump go to Wikipedia:Village pump? — The Storm Surfer 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe we should remove the navbox from the village pump pages instead - having the menu at the top is more convenient, and consistent with Wikipedia's main navbars. The Transhumanist 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, delete the other. Delete, redesign Template:Villagepump pages I prefer this one a lot. Perhaps the whole header section should be combined into 1 template with a parameter for each section. Atropos 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see that the other nav is included in the main template already. I suggest redesigning Template:Villagepumppages to look a little less messy. Atropos 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redesign Template:Villagepumppages so lazy scrollers can have the links at the top and not after several pages of FAQ, as seen on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The other village pumps are less overwhelmed by a FAQ section. Carcharoth 16:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The links are now at the top of Template:Villagepumppages. WODUP 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per merge. --Quiddity 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. replaceable by {{Villagepumppages}}. Carlosguitar 01:41, 19 August 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone episode

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single series version of {{Infobox Television episode}}, unused, time to delete. Jay32183 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, serves no purposes. –sebi 07:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standardization is good, redundant templates bad! --Haemo 00:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the standardization. Carlosguitar 01:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused. Dfrg.msc 07:29, 20 August 2007 (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 section.

Template:RAF

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. Mike Peel 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the adoption of infoboxes for air forces, there was a discussion about the use of infoboxes and sidebars (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Royal_Air_Force#Infoboxes_and_sidebars) during which I changed my mind. As a result, I started the Template:Royal Air Force which sits at the bottom of approximately the same pages as this template. One thing I haven't changed my mind about is that making use of both infoboxes and sidebars is needles duplication. Worse still, this template and the Royal Air Force template give further duplication. Greenshed 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is just as good as the Army & Navy ones not up for deletion, I think as a matter of Aesthetics it should be Template:Royal Air Force that is deleted Highfields 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present the British Army and Royal Navy articles do not use infoboxes and so the problem has not arisen. However, the United States Air Force uses both an infobox and a sidebar (but note - no bottom box) and, I submit, that its layout could be improved. As regards aesthetics, we can always improve the look of the "Royal Air Force" template. Greenshed 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All British defence force articles use the side bar. Not only British; French Navy, United States Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force use this format. I suspect that all defence force articles use this method. It is Template:Royal Air Force that creates the duplication and so it is the one that should be deleted. --Bill Reid | Talk 08:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth looking at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although I appreciate that it's about articles, not templates. Greenshed 19:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I completely agree with Bill Reid, As I see it it is 2 against 1 and so the template stays. Highfields 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLinks many articles together in a clear logical way. Dfrg.msc 07:28, 20 August 2007 (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 section.