Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 24

[edit]
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:REG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Team no longer exists, so navigation box listing current riders is deprecated. — SeveroTC 22:52, 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007-08 Minnesota Timberwolves depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007-08 New Jersey Nets depth chart‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007-08 New York Knicks depth chart‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007-08 Philadelphia 76ers depth chart‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007-08 Detroit Pistons depth chart‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007-08 Cleveland Cavaliers depth chart‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007-08 Chicago Bulls depth chart‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007-08 Indiana Pacers depth chart‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Depth charts templates are not helpful. Plus, see similar nomination that was deleted. Crzycheetah 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added more templates similar to the one nominated.--Crzycheetah 21:32, 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007-08 Houston Rockets depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Depth charts templates are not helpful. Plus, see similar nomination that was deleted. Crzycheetah 19:02, 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007-08 Los Angeles Lakers depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Depth charts templates are not helpful. Plus, see similar nomination that was deleted. — Crzycheetah 18:59, 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spellcheck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused template which just so happens to conflict with {{SpellCheck}}. Notice small spelling difference. I would have just redirected it myself, but it's protected. . The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I thought they performed different functions at first. Looking at the history, this looks like a redundant template which has been replaced by more advanced templates. The {{SpellCheck}} is used for messages, and internet browsers now have numerous ways to check spelling before/while uploading. PeterSymonds | talk 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand that Wikipedia is completely psychotic these days, but this nomination is obviously far from sincere. The new addition of {{SpellCheck}} is not amusing. The Spell check feature is NOT available on common browsers, such as IE - only on Firefox. Check the dates (particularly the year) of the history. Yes, this feature is used; it would be more than slightly stupid to presume some inconsistent name (with other English projects) due to a new preposterous user warning template. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:38, 25 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference simple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Template:Cite web. Ctempleton3 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template is as simple to use as {{cite web}}, with almost the same syntax. I have converted the ~20 articles with {{web reference simple}} to {{cite web}}, so currently there are no remaining articles that use this template. It is much better if we keep using the same syntax for citing sources, and if we use {{cite web}} it is much easier to extend the citation with information about author, publisher, publish date, etc. --Kildor (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This served its purpose back in the day when I created it, but it's been superseded now by cite web, so there is no reason to keep it around. -- RM 11:35, 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TripleJ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant, unused, superseded by Template:Triple J -- Tsuite T/C 01:01, 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite british history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Totally redundant with {{cite web}}. Why do we need to have a second template that when the major mainstream template can be used. — Ctempleton3 (talk) 03:02, 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.
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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waldo-nav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a single item in the template is a link - only the heading. It is highly unlikely that the individual books in the "Where's wally/waldo" series will get their own articles given the lack of, shall we say, plot development between editions. . Witty Lama 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They all do :) but they were linked to the wrong place. Apparently it's Where's Waldo? instead of Wally now. I think it's quite a useful template, quite comprehensive in the Where's Wally/Waldo? series. Perhaps something can be added to the title explaining the Wally/Waldo thing, but apart from that I don't think it should be deleted. PeterSymonds | talk 13:57, 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.