Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 3

< March 2	March 4 >

March 3

Template:Saudi Labelled Map

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 without prejudice against recreation if the problems can be fixed. IronGargoyle 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken template. Contains an unfree map of Arabia, with labels for cities placed in it using some templates; they are unusable because they heavily overlap. I have removed it from List of cities in Saudi Arabia, and I don't know of any other page that uses such a code. ~~Delete~~. - Mike Rosoft 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other templates that use such a code include {{Lebanon Labelled Map}}, {{Yugoslavia Labelled Map}}, {{Medvedja Labelled Map}}, {{MetabolismMap}}, {{Eurovision Song Contest Labelled Map}}, {{Kent Labelled Map}}, {{White American ancestries bar graph}}, {{WashingtonDChomicides Map}}, {{Indonesia provinces}}, {{AtL Labelled Map}}, {{Golden Horn Labelled Map}}, {{UN-Asia}}, {{Istanbul Labelled Map}}, {{NFLE Labelled Map}}, {{National Register Of Historic Places Map}}, {{World Labelled Map}}, {{RegionsofAsia-Central.png}}, {{Metabolic pathways}}, {{List LDS Temple Australia}}, {{Europe Labelled Map}}, {{United States Labelled Map}}, {{England Labelled Map}}, {{Caribbean Labelled Map}}, {{Australia Labelled Map}}, {{South America Labelled Map}}, {{Earth Labelled Map}} ...

...and about 2-3 times as much as that. Lovely css hack, really. Gracenotes^T § 22:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, looks like I have been wrong. But the point remains - unlike the above-mentioned templates, this one looks just horrible, not to mention the problems with the map's copyright status. Right now, I thing that the correct solution is to re-create it from the scratch (using an actual map of Saudi Arabia, not the entire Middle East), not to get rid of it completely. - Mike Rosoft 00:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, I don't like this image-text CSS hack. It just strikes me as web interface-cest :) Gracenotes ^T § 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = aside from not being used anywhere, I can't imagine how it could be used anywhere. Surely there's a PD map of Saudi Arabia that's an appropriate resolution to create a labelled map from. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its just an Image, it doesn't need to be in a template and there must be a map anyway to use on the appropriate articles.Telly addict 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Worthwhile idea, but would require a complete rewrite to be usable. —dgies^t_c 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation with an appropriately-scoped free map image. --Random832 16:23, 5 March 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:Withpermission University of Wyoming Photo

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. IronGargoyle 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template may have been used by its creator, User:DCPoke, as is shown by the user's upload logs [1]. The images s/he uploaded, however, have been deleted and the template is currently unused and there is no evidence that the University of Wyoming ever granted permission for their images to be used on Wikipedia. Iamunknown 20:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's too specific (if it weren't just a duplicate), it's unused, and the only thing it does is create a duplicate of {{withpermission}}. Which is an invalid tag; images with it get speedied on sight. -Amarkov moo! 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely redundant with {{withpermission}}, and gratuitous double transclusion should generally be avoided. There shouldn't be two templates that say the exact same thing but are meant to be used differently, as this gets confusing fast. Gracenotes ^T § 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant per Gracenotes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSUMark2006 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete True, it is just a total copy of {{withpermission}}.Telly addict 15:28, 4 March 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:Poke-prof

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 IronGargoyle 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a navigation box for five characters in the Pokémon anime and games, four of which aren't very notable at all (though they have articles, they could probably be condensed into one, or merged into other articles, which is something I'll probably pursue in the future). It's unencyclopedic, and it's unnecessary. An alternative, if deletion is oposed strongly enough, is to merge it with Template:Pokémon anime characters (relabelling the heading of that box from "main characters" to "characters"), but since most of these characters also make (usually brief) appearances in the games, that is less than ideal. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to Category:Pokémon researchers, no possibility for meta-inof to be added. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reason as User:Zappernapper. Funpika 18:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded and useless. John Reaves (talk) 20:43, 4 March 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:Kendall County, Illions

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 by BigHaz (deletion requested by author). —dgies^t_c 05:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion is that this is a spelling error, and that the real template is already posted Template:Kendall County, Illinois. Contacted creator Mjvan12 and stated that it was a spelling error and could be deleted.--Kranar drogin 17:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably just get Mjvan12 to put a db-userreq on it then? DanielT5 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since the author requests deletion here, and there is no reason to keep it. Good faith all around :) Gracenotes ^T § 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smbarnzy 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We already have the same thing at Template:Kendall County, Illinois with the correct spelling. —dgies^t_c 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the author requests deletion then what is the point in keeping it? If he asks to keep it though then I'd vote keep because its a good template.Telly addict 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete misspelling and per author's request. John Reaves (talk) 20:48, 4 March 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:WA JSHAA Members

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. Might have been a borderline case, but the canvassing killed it. IronGargoyle 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion as unnecessary, not encyclopaedic, and better dealt with by the use of correctly structured categories for the organisation in question. --thewinchester 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another pile-on template in articles which contain it. Links many schools which would not otherwise be linked. Orderinchaos78 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - schools are not notable only in the context of JSHAA (if at all). Gracenotes ^T § 17:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. DanielT5 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary template for an unencylopaedic association. These templates are becoming a cancer. We need to get back to writing prose. —Moondyne 09:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable organisation, notable schools. Smbarnzy 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people are going to consider deleting this, then maybe they should consider deleting the Public Schools Association template, because they are loosely based around the same principle - a group of schools that facilitates sports. The only diference is that the PSA is only involved in sports, and the JSHAA is involved in both sports and education. This irritates me alot to think that people want this template deleted. Smbarnzy 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notable schools - no-one is disputing that. You are free to nominate anything you like. —Moondyne 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dammit - sometimes i hate wikipedia so much for deleting stuff ive contributed to :( Smbarnzy 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok. Everything you do on WP is released under GFDL and as such you acknowledge that it can be edited, deleted, removed, or whatever is appropriate is done to it. In this case, the most appropriate action is deletion as it's a redundant template which adds no value to WP and the intent of what you are trying to achieve can easily be dealt with through the use of categorisation. If you disagree with categorisation then fine, but don't object to the TfD just because you put work into it, and don't try and stack the vote either by encouraging friends to help you out. thewinchester 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are all important schools, how is it unencuclopedic? A list of schools in Australia is definitely important enough to keep.Telly addict 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable organisation, with member schools. Schools deserve some JSHAA Template recognition with links to other member schools. Aurora north (WikiDesk) 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this when considering the above vote. DanielT5 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable organisations get articles and this one has an article. Notability doesnt mean an organisation most have never heard of and would never search for "deserves" a template. Especially when just about every school in the list is a member of multiple organisations, does that mean we need an A4 block of templates for every organisation the school happens to join? Templates are navigational tools, this one fails the purpose of a navigational tool and is just congestion. DanielT5 08:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- DanielT5 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Right on the head DanielT5, and one of the many reasons why I moved this template to TfD. thewinchester 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg to differ - completely. Sorry, but just a short list of JSHAA members (those in both the WA branch and the Federal branch) is what is needed most. Aurora north (WikiDesk) 09:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This organisation has existed for ~50 years, it is VERY notable within the Western Australian Education system. It is also quite influential within the WAES. It would be to the detriment of wikipedia NOT to have it. SM BarnZy 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very notable to its members, not terribly notable to the community. Most Western Australians - probably close on 99% - would never even have heard of it, unlike say the AISWA. Anyway, this is not a discussion about notability of an *article*, which has already been established, but the worthiness of having yet another template for yet another organisation whose members have nothing else in common but membership in it, and for whom membership is not a central part of their existence. Orderinchaos78 09:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of it previously and have some concerns about the notability of the Junior School Heads Association of Australia article - but as Orderinchaos78 said, that's not what this discussion is about. Every association article does not automatically warrant a template and certainly not this association. —Moondyne 10:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not one Western Australian newspaper has so much as mentioned it since 1998. 550 hits on Google for the organisation most of them on their own members websites, very few of them independent (although just enough to make it notable to have an article). I hadnt heard of it until this debate commenced and I live in western australia and have only just finished high school. DanielT5 15:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~The schools are notable. So is the organization. But there's no need to have a template linking to the other schools of the organization at the bottom of each article in it. --User:Krator (t c) 11:18, 7 March 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:Tenacious D Tour Chronology

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 speedily deleted, author request Gracenotes ^T § 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary template - I made it. Please delete it. --Tenacious D Fans (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tagged the template for speedy deletion, since you, the author, have requested it. If you want to get the template back or retrieve any of its contents, just ask an admin. Gracenotes ^T § 17:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per db-userreq Orderinchaos78 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has now been deleted per db-author by W.Marsh DanielT5 19:30, 3 March 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:TGIF (ABC)

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 no consensus. Many of those advocating deletion offer improvement as another option. This seems relevant, as does the fact that TGIF has a cultural parity with Toonami per Random832. IronGargoyle 01:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary listing of shows that happened to be on ABC Fridays in the 1990s. I know it really exsisted, but this template is pretty pointless and doesn't really serve any purpose, as they shows weren't intertwined or such. Booshakla 12:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were something like Toonami, it might be reasonable, but TGIF just seems to be the name for the block of time, not anything in and of itself. -Amarkov

moo! 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment TGIF, in its day, _was_ a block to which an analogy with Toonami can be drawn, with cross-promotion (and at least one whole-block crossover) between the shows, etc, and not just a time block. That said, delete anyway or improve if possible. maybe no prejudice against recreation? --Random832 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment TGIF is exactly like toonami. Suppafly 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or improve - as it stands this is redundant to Category:TGIF (ABC), if it possibly offered the shows in chronological order with episode priemere and finale dates i could find this template to be little more useful. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve or Weak delete I concur in that this template is only really interesting or useful if it provides dates. TGIF ran for 8 years; some of the early shows are only related to the later shows by the time block in which they aired. Something similar to List of programs broadcast by Nick at Nite would be more useful than this template. I'm willing to help revamp it if the consensus is to "improve, otherwise delete". --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete After poking around a little more, I found TGIF (ABC)#TGIF schedules which serves exactly this purpose. The template is redundant since the category also exists and it clutters up the pages. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is a little useless, especially if these shows are not airing anymore.Tellyaddict 15:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how them not airing anymore is relevant.
Weak keep, it could be improved a bit, but as it stands it's only marginally useful. John Reaves (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suppafly 19:02, 8 March 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:Adopted by Stub

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 kingboyk 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to encourage violation of WP:OWN, not categorised, points to non existent project or page so is useless --DanielT5 10:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-existent WikiProject Page, and it is a violation of WP:OWN, if this was a Project it would probably be bad as people would become protective of certain articles.Telly addict 11:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and nom: there is no article ownership (WP:OWN). In addition, Adopt-an-Article is non-existent. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Obvious WP:OWN violation. Pea ceNT 14:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Totally agree with all comments as above, completely valid reasons for deletion. thewinchester 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (perhaps snowball, it'd be best if people agreed about that). Maybe "if you have any questions about the subject of this article, ask so-and-so" would marginally be permissible, but this is against WP:OWN in concept. Not really much else to say. Gracenotes ^T § 17:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Templates implying that only a certain number of people may actively work on an article is a bad idea. -Amarkov moo! 17:54, 3 March 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:Kidnappednav

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 IronGargoyle 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

empty navigation template --Locndso 10:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created a little under six months ago?? Still non existing interwikis there, obviously no work is going to be carried out here on creating the articles.Telly addict 11:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tellyaddict, doesn't look like it's going anywhere — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del per above(s) †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a canceled show that's unlikely to have enough info about those characters to generate separate articles. John Reaves (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Reaves --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:38, 7 March 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:Buso Renkin character info

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 under WP:CSD#G7 by NawlinWiki. mattbr³⁰ 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so I actually did misread while creating a template for Buso Renkin characters. Since it was a mistake it'll be good to delete it, i'll leave it to someone more experienced to make a template. Shimoji Kawazaki 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not portraying like a proper template and contains no information which would be relevant for a template.Telly addict 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:28, 3 March 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:Add2 6 1& Template:Add2 7 4

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, borderline speedy. IronGargoyle 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and I can't really see a use for them. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if I didn't assume good faith I would have tagged them with {{tl|db-nonsense)), except that I AGF :) Gracenotes ^T § 05:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not portraying properly and its totally empty.Telly addict 11:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and useless — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:39, 4 March 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:Albrandswaard

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 still no consensus —Pilot guy (go around) 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template too narrowly defined, there is nothing on this template of any benefit to related articles. No longer used. Similar to nominated template:Teylingen. -- P199 18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its listed on a couple of WikiProject Pages and on here so delete if its not being used anywhere on articles.Telly addict 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 2 few village articles fall under it, which both link to the other. –Pomte 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency. Unlike Teylingen, this one is a navigational template. I'm planning on creating one for (almost) all municipalities in the Netherlands. Besides, there are more than two places in the Albrandswaard; I've added them to the template. Eugène van der Pijll 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now 4 links on this template, two of which are red-linked: so still unnecessary. The locations should be linked in the article on the municipality. Making a template for population centres in each municipality is redundant and clutter (except perhaps for those municipalities with an very high number of communities). Why not spend your time and effort on real improvements to content (or the red-links) in stead of fluff? -- P199 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changes to the template by Eugene van der Pijll. Redlinks promote article creation and it seems as though these would be reasonable article topics to create. IronGargoyle 00:41, 10 March 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:Dragon Ball manga

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 IronGargoyle 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox does not have anything to link to. So far, only 1 of the 42 volumes has an article. Serves no navigational purpose. ― El Cid ∴∵ 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have a good point, I was really hoping in the future it would expand, but my work on Wikipedia is once again going to be deleted... I guess everything has it's flaw, including Wikipedia. Hucz 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No article listed on here just User pages and other stuff. Definitely delete.Telly addict 11:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disused template. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 14:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tellyaddict †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please, do not create an article for each volume of the manga. –Pomte 06:03, 5 March 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:Provinces of Kenya

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 IronGargoyle 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is duplicated by {{First and second-level administrative divisions of Kenya}}. Nyttend 05:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. mattbr³⁰ 13:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. {{First and second-level administrative divisions of Kenya}} is not so big that it needs to be split up, and it eases navigation. –Pomte 06:05, 5 March 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:Page subtitle

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. Nobody expressed desire for me to userfy the template to them so I am killing it outright. I think GA badges are a kind of nice idea, but that is neither here nor there. IronGargoyle 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is being used to place text into the area of screen usually reserved for FA stars. It's presence is encouraging editors who would otherwise not be aware of the possibility to even do this to place various little snippets of text, GA icons, audio samples (!) and other crud into the top corner of articles. I've removed several instances of this - all the GA badges went on sight - but I've left a few in place so folks can see the problem. --kingboyk 18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a CSS hack, which breaks accesability, and encourages placing useless things in the corner. -Amarkov moo! 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another template doing much the same thing was recently deleted. Gimmetrow 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My understanding is that having things in the upper right hand corner is reserved for only a very small number of articles, i.e. FAs. --Danaman5 20:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The corner is used for semi-official things, including the FA star, article protection, and spoken articles. Gimmetrow 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, which has previously been done to CSS hacks. Gracenotes^T § 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree to that, if someone wants it. Just so long as it's made clear that it should not ever be used in articles. -Amarkov moo! 20:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the imagemap hack is allowed on user pages, so if people really wanted this on a user page, that would be ok. However, at present it is not used on any user pages, just a few articles and one article talk page. All the uses I could find that kingboyk removed were in article space. I doubt it would be worth userfying, and having it around encourages it to reappear in articles. Gimmetrow 01:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with a warning not to use in article space if anyone wants it, otherwise delete. --ais523 12:06, 5 March 2007 (U T C)
Delete. I think it digs its own grave by breaking {{tfd}}. Lol. — atchius (msg) 06:07, 6 March 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.