Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 5

< March 4	March 6 >

March 5

Template:ECUFootballCoach

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 00:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:ECUPiratesFBCoach, orphaned, simply delete this. --MECU≈talk 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant, and not as complete as other version by far. Gracenotes ^T § 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above, and, it is a redundant AND not as good version of the first template. Nol888_(Talk) 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G6. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.↔NMajdan•talk 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 13:16, 11 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:Infobox Ethnic group beta

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 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard one-off POV fork variant of the Ethnic Group infobox, created solely to list Flemish and Afrikaners as 'Dutch' and inflate population totals for Dutch ethnic group, redundant, defeats purpose of standard infobox, delete and use standard infobox. --Paul111 11:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because application area too specific/small for its own box. POV fork less of a problem IMHO. Arnoutf 11:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there truly is consensus on the Dutch page to have a box different from all others for some good reason, it can be done in situ without an extra template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too specific to be an infobox. - Nick C 13:19, 11 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:MelbourneTramInfobox2&3

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 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer required as Zone 3 has now been removed from the Melbourne Public Transport system. Lakeyboy 11:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is coexistant with and redundant to Template:MelbourneTramInfobox2, due to the elimination of Zone 3. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' redundant to Template:MelbourneTramInfobox2. —dima/s-ko/ 04:03, 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:30 Rock nav

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. John Reaves (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with episode infobox. --EEMeltonIV 04:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and redundant. See The Aftermath (30 Rock episode) for example of infobox. –Pomte 06:09, 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:Titin

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 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template contains nothing but a 218kb, >189,000-character string that is the names of all the amino acids in the protein titin. It is sometimes (fatuously) claimed to be the longest word in the English language, and the template has been used mainly for the purpose of carrying on a months-long edit war on titin over whether this material should be included; consensus among knowledgeable editors on the talk page is that a) the material has no place in the article, and more relevantly b) this template has fatal technical flaws that impede the article's readability and make the template unsuitable for use in presenting this material. This is, essentially, source material that doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia; note that it has been deleted at least once from Wikisource. Opabinia regalis 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the sequence should be shown doing it as a template is not reasonable, for it will be used in no other article.DGG 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for this to be a template. John Reaves (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for this to be here at all. I highly doubt anyone has ever, or will ever, seriously refer to a protein by its chemical sequence. And if they do, they have far too much time on their hands. No reader will concievably care, and 218 kb of text in a template is incredibly disruptive. -Amarkov moo! 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP, there is a need for the template to remain at the page. You have not actually gone out of your way to disprove the content of this name at all whatsoever. To remove the template itself is an act towards ignorance rather to tend to the majority of the people who actually visit wikipedia in a state of curiosity just to view the longest word in the English language. I recommend that the template does not get deleted until a reliable external/wikisource link can be established to promote fairness to both sides. If this cannot be done due to a failure in the system (as is obvious with wikipedia), then at least change the default "SHOW" to "HIDE" instead. -64.180.240.190 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, I did some research. What happened was that a string of letters representing amino acids was posted by a wikipedia adminstrator (brian0918 - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Brian0918) according to a quote from science.slashdot.org forum

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144207&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=12085345

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144207&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=12087069#12088788

Along came FlameViper who took the string of letters representing amino acids and TRANSLATE it into the names themselves, creating the "official" name. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that you talk to both members before you even delete the template itself. I find it mindboggling and confounding that a Wikipedia adminstrator was involved in this somehow (reminds me of a government pointing fingers at "terrorists" for using firearms provided by said government in the past). If anything, the name should be kept and find a reasonable solution that can benefit everyone in whole (including the users). I strongly suggest putting the template itself on protection (to avoid undetectable vandalism) and setting the template to (HIDE) instead of (SHOW). 64.180.240.190 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flameviper, the main contributor to this template, is currently indefinitely blocked, which may make discussion about this template difficult. --ais523 12:04, 5 March 2007 (U T C)

Delete -- per nomination, John Reaves and Amarkov. --Keesiewonder ^talk 12:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the name, Flameviper just copied it into this template. Originally, I posted the name at Wikisource and linked to it in the article, but it looks like the page has been deleted at Wikisource. Can anyone who is an admin there find out why? [1] — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-05 14:50Z
- Based on the deletion log and links, it was deleted according to this disccussion. --Random832 15:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deletion reason appears to be s:WS:WWI#Reference material; it's sort of like violating WP:NOT on Wikipedia. --ais523 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    - The problem with that is the text itself can take up ~40-50 pages of a textbook (my estimate might be off) and I don't think the "Reference Material violation" can really count since it was translated into a word based on methods explained by other textbooks. So this is pretty iffy and borderline. As for explaining why the wikisource text was deleted, no one had any explanation and it did came to a consensus in discussion that the name itself would be an external/wikisource link. 64.180.240.190 22:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt whether this should even be mentioned anywhere at all, but even if it should be, it shouldn't be in a template. Templates are usually for more universal material than this.--Danaman5 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where do you propose that we put the word in? 64.180.240.190 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above, especially Danaman5. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:34, 11 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:NBB episodes and Template:Infobox The Naked Brothers Band 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 both. IronGargoyle 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless sloppy and unused templates. All episodes of the Naked Brothers Band TV series redirect to List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes. — Moe 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for these templates to exist. John Reaves (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete infobox made redundant by {{Infobox Television episode}} — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the both of them. redundant. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:30, 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.