Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 20

< March 19	March 21 >

March 20

Template:Convert/and/lbs

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! 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subtemplate was created with the purpose of abbreviating "pounds" to "lbs" (e.g. "5 st 6 lbs"). This goes against the Manual of Style which states "Symbols have no plural form, i.e. an s is never appended (‘kg’, ‘km’, ‘in’, ‘lb’, ‘bit’, not ‘kgs’, ‘kms’, ‘ins’, ‘lbs’, ‘bits’)." J ɪ m p 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does in the UK which has been verified for human height only. In the UK 0 & 1 would not be pluralised, this is the standard in the UK. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We follow Wikipedia standards not UK ones. If this isn't right, take it to WT:MOSNUM first. J ɪ m p 00:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are better conversion templates on offer; see {{convert}} for the complete list. Also, it shouldn't be used if it goes against the manual of style. PeterSymonds | talk 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I created it, not too bothered about it, it has never really had a real application. Only ever created with the fact in mind that within the UK human height in st and lb would be pluralised for 2 through 13 lbs, but not 0 lb and 1 lb.Londo 06 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was created as part of {{convert}} but didn't work until Alexsanderson connected it up. Soon after his doing so I disconnected it so the subtemplate again doesn't work. {{Convert}} is not geared towards pluralisation of abbreviations so using this subtemplate you'd end up with "lbs" regardless of number. I think that wherever you be "12 st 1 lbs" is worse than "12 st 2 lb". {{Convert}} could be adapted to deal with pluralisation of abbreviations but I'd suggest the issue of allowing such on WP first be discussed at WT:MOS & WT:MOSNUM. J ɪ m p 01:10, 24 March 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:Free poster

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 - not a template, no meaningful content Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what this was intended to be, but it's not actually an image license. We have {{non-free poster}} for non-free posters, but free posters would have to be tagged as public domain, GFDL, or whatever. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of it it was just a bodged image upload. I think this can be speedied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Appears to be an attempt to upload a photo under a free license. PeterSymonds | talk 12:14, 23 March 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:Live Aid Stadia

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. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a template with two things really needed?. michfan2123 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course it isn't. Almost any article referencing one would ref the other inline anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A template with only two items is inappropriate. PeterSymonds | talk 13:58, 23 March 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 user

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 redirect to Template:User infobox. Singu larity 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and obsolete rival to {{user infobox}}. Only six instances on user space, which were all sparse and broken. I've fixed those instances to use {{user infobox}}, so this template is now orphaned. Attributes that were in use have been merged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect, then? It's likely that someone will be looking for such a template by name. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect {{user infobox}} was tagged for merger of {{infobox user}} earlier this month but there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the target page. Merger would've resulted in a redirect.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to both of you: the plan is to then move {{user infobox}} to this template's name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Considering they effectively do the same thing, a deletion is perhaps not needed. PeterSymonds | talk 14:00, 23 March 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.