Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29

Template:Infobox Three Stage Launch Vehicle

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and redundant to {{infobox rocket}} anyway. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:51, Wednesday, January 31 '07

Delete. Redundant. Ahudson 21:40, 31 January 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:Infobox Four Stage Launch Vehicle

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completly redundant to more common Template:Infobox rocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), only used on one page, where it can easily be replaced with {{infobox rocket}}. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:52, Wednesday, January 31 '07

Delete, as per above. Ahudson 21:40, 31 January 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:ER Character

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not needed; {{infobox character}} is better as more information can be put in it. The template is now not used in any pages. --J Di 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NRV. Dfrg.msc 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason why ER needs something the standard infobox doesn't have. -Amark moo! 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't need a separate infobox for ER. Jayden54 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:53, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Delete redundant †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 6 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:Infobox Barrie

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use template placed outside of acticle that uses the standard infobox anyway. Placed standard infobox inside and TfD this one. --MJCdetroit 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good template and contains some relevant information about the place. Tellyaddict 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the information is being kept. It is now within the article itself using the standard template instead of outside the article with a single use template that uses the standard template and then redirects back in the article itself. I hope I stated that so it made sense. MJCdetroit 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is a good template, but there is another template that organizes a city's info into an infobox. Someone should try to move all the information there into {{Infobox city}}, which makes Wikipedia more uniform. Furthermore, I don't think it is necessary to construct an infobox for each city/town. If we have to create infoboxes for all cities, Wikipedia would be jammed with all these infoboxes. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:54, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Delete, as per above arguments. Ahudson 21:43, 31 January 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:Tamil Months

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After redirecting the articles involved to the main article (they were all one line stubs, plus a few redlinks), no article uses this template anymore. --Fram 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template does not even say where these places are. Not really relevant but if it were kept it would need a bit more info added to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Uh... they're months, not places. Look at the name of the template. Ahudson 21:45, 31 January 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:CACTVSGIF

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image license template has been deprecated for over a year, and no images use it. If any images are changed to use it, they will be speedy deleted. Hence it seems a bit pointless – Qxz 11:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an acceptable license and not being used. Gavia immer (u|t) 16:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Tellyaddict 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NRV. Dfrg.msc 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Out of curiosity, is there any reason we're keeping the trick "Your image will be speedy deleted" templates like this on the upload form? -Amark moo! 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To see if the uploader knows the copyright status. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:57, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Delete, unaccepatable. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:57, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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:This article

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This fairly recent (Aug 2006) dablink template was apparently created as a more flexible alternative to {{otheruses4}}. However, the vast majority of uses used exactly the same wording as {{otheruses4}}; I have changed almost all of them to use more appropriate and well established templates. The remaining ones that might need more flexibility can just use the generic {{dablink}}. I think there is a broad consensus on Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes against proliferation of such templates, since they defeat the point of standardising the messages. Hairy Dude 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template is not really necessary on Wikipedia. Tellyaddict 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why template two words? -Amark moo! 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Ahudson 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change all uses to otheruses4, then delete Ashibaka (tock) 17:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems the most sensible approach. Hairy Dude 04:42, 6 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:Infobox CA Route small

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depracated in favor of {{Infobox road}} per WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, server waster - Jorcoga ^Hi!_{10:49, Monday, January 29 2007}
Delete I agree with other opinion (made by Jorcoga). Tellyaddict 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer used or needed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NRV. Dfrg.msc 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above - deprecated • master_son^{Lets talk} 01:49, 30 January 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:WV Highways

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously a template that provided links to most West Virginia state highway articles. After an infobox-based browsing system was developed and implemented across the said articles, this template became redundant and useless. Second nomination of template; however, this is the first since October 2005 and the circumstances surrounding this nomination are distinctly different than in the first, located here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have deleted all of the other ones for other states. Also, I suspect that the other TFD was subject to socks or new users or IPs or something of that nature. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above • master_son^{Lets talk} 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not relevant. Tellyaddict 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NRV. Dfrg.msc 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)05:59, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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.