Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9

Template:Infobox Province of Argentina

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{Geobox}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (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 Province AR

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{Geobox}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (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:Disambig-guidance

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Disambig}}, usused MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - {{Disambig}} is more visible and much more useful. Terraxos (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2008 (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:Nn-warnhead

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly formed, old warning, redundant to {{Nn-warn}} unused. MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 9 June 2008 (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:Tuck surnames

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, obscure template that is better kept an article (which I made it). MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created it with content from a Dab, surely bcz i used it (or intended that it be used) elsewhere, most likely in LoPbN, now deleted. No objection to deletion.
--Jerzy•t 21:50, 9 June 2008 (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:Recent-vandalism-only-ip

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, non-standard template that is really ugly and redundant to other templates. MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard vandalism warnings/block logs/and other block templates are more useful than this one. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:09, 17 June 2008 (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:Vandalism-only-ip

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Repeat vandal. — Spellcast (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a redundant template. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments @ Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_9#Template:Recent-vandalism-only-ip NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:49, 17 June 2008 (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 Cardinalstyles

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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is transcluded on all cardinal pages, but the only individual information it contains is the see of the cardinal. The rest of the template (the three styles) are filled in automatically and identically for each cardinal. So this template contains extremely little specific info for the articles it is placed on, while the general info is not very encyclopedic and not important for any individual biography (the "correct" way to address cardinals is a topic for the general Cardinal (Catholicism) page, not for each individual page). There is no use for this template on the pages of individual cardinals (there already is a template infobox cardinalbiog, which contains the see and much more info, so nothing is lost by deleting this template). — Fram (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is very important it shows a lot of vital information about how to address Cardinals. I have changed the design so that now Your/His Eminience is not defualt. Unless you have any other issues then this template should no longer be up for deletion. Additional;ly Cardinal Biog is an infobox that goes up the top of the page look at Elizabeth II she has two infoboxs one for vital and one for a stlyes. This template is needed vey much. The Quill (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, all cardinals had the same style of address. What you have changed, if I understand correctly, that instead of automatically putting those styles, you now have to manually add them. However, in reality, all cardinals still have the same style of address of course. The information on how to address cardinals may or may not be vital, but it is certainly not vital information for every individual cardinal, but for the position of cardinal in general, and should be adressed there. Fram (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fram for deletion. There is really limited value for cardinalstyles to stay. A side-tracked suggestion, though, is to add an entry in the cardinalbiog infobox for the pastoral arms of the cardinal, which is currently lacking of in both infoboxes. Raphaelhui (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Quill, if anything, the styles box adds to the formal nature of the page and helps make pages with less information look more like a professional encyclopedia. I disagree with what Raphael said, the styles are used for political purposes as well when addressing members of religious orders, just like politicians in some countries. Usually, people having an audience with high ranking members such as cardinals are given the correct protocol for addressing. The styles maybe in the main cardinal page, but doesn't detract from the professionalism in the individual pages. JFonseka (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current form. It is a good and basic point that the general form of address belongs at Cardinal (Catholicism). Such a template for cardinals should rather be built around the titular churches. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I complitely disagree with who want to delate this template. If the problems is that it countains only a few informations we'd better to improve it instead of thinkink about its delation. Moreover it's also aesthetically beutiful. --Andreabrugiony (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (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 DTV

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template contains information that is largely redundant to a pre-existing template, {{Infobox Broadcast}}, and was created in ignorance of the efforts of other editors to reach a consensus on how to include information on the upcoming U.S. switch from analog to digital broadcasting in the existing template. It was composed in the singular POV of its creator, without input from other editors of related articles. — Rollosmokes (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant template that was used wholly in order to get around the semi-protection of Infobox Broadcast currently in effect. No need for it at all. Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Purpose of template, explained here long before the WP:3RR problems at {{Infobox Broadcast}}, is to deal with the 1800 full-power US TV stations which will be shutting down analogue broadcasts on February 17, 2009. Your suggestion of renaming or changing the analog field in the existing template to make them go away at the end of DTV transition will not work if they're on the existing template, as that edit would also remove the analogue field from non-US stations and low-power stations, both of which are remaining on-air after the full-power US analog shutdown and which are also using {{Infobox Broadcast}}. The fields which are similar, or dissimilar, between the two templates are clearly defined in Template:Infobox DTV/doc, try looking there if you're uncertain of the purpose of this template. --carlb (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Rollo and Nate. -- azumanga (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, per everyone above. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/my contribs/e-mail me} 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- completely redundant; template was created to circumvent existing infobox template. --Mhking (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (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:Adwnote

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Template:Adw. Old and non-standard. tgies (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other template is far clearer and makes this one obsolete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 9 June 2008 (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:Intro:pink floyd

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be old and abandoned. I think someone was trying to come up with a clever way to discourage editing of the opening paragraph of Pink Floyd. Dates from March 2007. — A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one is obvious. In mainspace generally people don't put mere texts into templates. Chimeric Glider (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and not template-esque. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 04:34, 12 June 2008 (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:Test5

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard, ancient blocking template. Superseded by more specific templates that actually explain how ~~long someone is blocked for and the exact reason they are blocked.~~ MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect it. This is, if not the first block template, then very nearly so. I for one can't be bothered to remember whatever cryptic, unintuitive name the one currently in vogue's at. —Cryptic 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without redirecting). There's never been consensus that the old templates have been "superseded," and it was agreed that they would be retained for those of us who prefer them. There is absolutely no need to restrict user warning/block templates to a strict "standard," and this one does contain parameters that enable one to specify the block's duration and the title of the page on which the user caused disruption. —David Levy 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not see the section for the variables. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Old test templates have been kept because some people prefer them. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template seems to still have substantial(?) use by admins. Also as per per David Levy. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:01, 17 June 2008 (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:Tempblockeduser

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old template, used on 3 pages. Confuses the level of permanence of a block per Arbcom (which requires a community decision to overturn) and a block by administrators, which any administrator may overturn. Superseded by other, better templates. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the template seems to basically be obscure in use, and the others (such as Template:Test5) sum it up better. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 19:56, 17 June 2008 (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:Ublock

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, old, nonstandard blocking template. Doesn't describe unblock reasons, block length, etc. Superseded by UTM scheme. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically per nom, as the newer block templates such as Template:Test5 are more useful than this one. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:06, 18 June 2008 (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:MIPblock

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard obsolete blocking template. Superseded by UTM, not in use in current scheme, fails to describe how to be unblocked. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 9 June 2008 (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.