Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20

Template:Sea of Japan Infobox

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! 07:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was only used on a single article for its entire lifetime, with little potential for getting on more articles. Is now un-used. --GunnarRene 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten and keep This is a good template but its very long with all the different language translations so it would probably be best if the language translations were removed.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alreasy substed in the one apropriate article and can't usefullly be used anywhere else. Eluchil404 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, already subst'ed but history needs to be copied to Sea of Japan to preserve GFDL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Llama man 18:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and comments above. -- P199 19:47, 21 February 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 page.

Template:Teylingen

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! 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template too narrowly defined, there is nothing on this template of any benefit to related articles. No longer used. -- P199 16:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chances of it being used are slim and it is just like a dictionary definition but in a template, definitely not relevant.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where could this ever be used??Arnoutf 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Llama man 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No clue why this needs relisting, looks like an open-and-shut case of not knowing what templates are for. —Dgies^t c 18:13, 20 February 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 page.

Template:GSOTD

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! 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for the guitar portal. Only contributor stopped contributing in July. --^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm involved in updating the previous neglected portal, and this template isn't used. CiaranG 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said on the MFD page about this its not worth it becuase its unused and its just takig up unnecessary server space.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, argument about server space invalid since deleted stuff is still on servers, just hidden from non-admins. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does potentially have terabytes of server space, but still, not needed. Would be a nice portal element, but is unmaintained (and I certainly can't play a guitar, go pianos!). Gracenotes ^T § 01:05, 21 February 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 page.

Template:Etymology of British Isles

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 per WP:CSD#G7. – riana_dzasta 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used. --Mais oui! 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. I created it and have moved it to my user space. Delete it. --sony-youth^talk 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relvant and the author requested it, that means a speedy deletion!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD.G7. I tagged the page with {{db-author}}. -- Black Falcon 05:55, 21 February 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 page.

Template:Trainz

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! 07:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template consists almost entirely of red links. I don't think the individual games in this series are different enough to warrant their own articles (each is an updated version of the last, rather than a "sequel" per se), and the "brew crew" and Lance Jago wouldn't satisfy WP:BIO. FiggyBee 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --kingboyk 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated; as I trainzer myself, I agree with most of the nomination; the poeple are non-notable, and the games are so similar that they ought to be grouped under one 'trainz' article. The contents opf the 'other' section should also reside under a singly 'trainz' article. tommylommykins 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Don't think it worth it, however the article could be being creted but for the minute its a delete.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 17:56, 20 February 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 page.

Template:Rob and Amber

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! 07:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template to navigate between a couple of reality show contestants and their TV show appearances is unnecessary. Also unhelpful because it was rejected on the TV show pages as they are, I would gather, only a fraction of an ensemble on the programs. Tinlinkin 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --kingboyk 09:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant, no actual useful information for Wikipedia.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered speedy deletion, but decided on TfD because it appears that this template has been nominated before. John Reaves (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No need for a template for two people. All are linked on their pages/shows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 February 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 page.

Template:TemplateName

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 delete. —Dgies^t c 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template's contents are blank and it does not appear to serve a function. This was apparently nominated in mid-January (based on talk pages I've seen in "what links here"), but I can't find any record of the discussion. --John Reaves (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No useful purpose, there is already a template about this saying The below template is being considered in for deletion. Please see the templaes for deletion page to help reach consensus on what to do. Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G2 - All previous versions have no meaningful content, so looks like a test/experiment page. —Dgies^t c 18:05, 20 February 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 page.

peer2peer

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 userfy per Wikipedia:Userbox migration

Totally unencyclopedic, and no role to play in community building. Wikipedia is not a playground nor is it a soapbox.

Note to closing admin: If the result is delete, please also deal with the holding category, Category:Peer to peer user templates. --kingboyk 09:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy per nom. John Reaves (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UserfyWarhorus 14:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep These are valuble userboxes, the reason for deletion is not very informative and justified —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Userfy These templates are no different that ones that say "This user uses Windows/Linux/OSX" Cmsjustin 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any thing wrong with it. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per nom. There's nothing wrong with them, but there is nothing right and nothing constructive with them either. --Iamunknown 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace per previous precdent (card games, Monty Python, operating systems, web browsers). Hbdragon88 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Dread Specter 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I don't understand the reason for deletion, I don't see any link between "p2p" and "soapbox and playground". Should be userfied indeed, since no valid arguments for deletion have arisen yet, and there clearly is a certain use to those userboxes (people are using them).[reply]
Keep. The grounds given for deletion do not apply to these templates. Rogue 9 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. -- Black Falcon 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're just user boxes. Most user boxes aren't "constructive". They're just personal statements. Danner578 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I would loathe to see them deleted, but it is true that they don't have much to do with "building an encyclopedia". Let's migrate them and everybody should be satisfied. Like have cake and eat cake at the same time.... mmmmm.... cake..... Charon X/talk 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a userbox, not an article. --Amjra 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I agree with Amjra that Wiki user categorizations/userbox templates need not meet up with the requirements for notability that article categorizations must, but I also think it's as good a time as any at the present moment to have the templates meet with the newer requirements as outlined in Wikipedia:Userbox migration. (Krushsister 03:04, 23 February 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 page.