Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 16

< April 15	April 17 >

April 16

Template:Botanist-inline

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 discussion was substitute all transclusions, then delete Erik9 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Botanist-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. - This is a blatant violation of how I feel this guideline should be interpreted. It is also worth reading Hesperian's comments here. It appears to be used on just over 50 pages, so if the outcome is delete, it wouldn't be difficult to fix. It is also worth noting that Template:Botanist already exists for this purpose. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hesperian. :-) Hesperian 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I'm concerned that someone will re-create it in the future (although it won't be me ). I think is is more dangerous as a content fork of Template:Botanist (since there are nuances in the wording that are not apparent to non-specialists) than as an inline template.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Part of the reason this template was created was to get rid of the abomination of a boxed version and the stilted and inaccurate wording of Template:Botanist. I've pointed out repeatedly that the templates are not duplicates of each other, but that seems to fall on deaf ears. If this template is also deleted, I shall place the author abbreviation in the body of the text (where it belongs) without benefit of any template. Rotational (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know what you consider inaccurate.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good man; that's the ticket! Hesperian 12:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Putting the abbrevation in the text is preferable to such a short template, so should be first choice.Yob Mod 09:29, 17 April 2009 (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:Black Cat

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 discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black Cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links four articles together, with little-to-no chance of additional articles being added in the future. The articles are already strongly interlinked. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Is it not likely that any of the novels/games etc will ever have articles? If they are not notable enough, then delete.Yob Mod 09:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost definitely not, since they all seem to be unlicensed. However, if they ever are split into separate articles (and can actually support those articles), the template can be easily enough recreated at that time. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not necessary, just clutters the bottom of the pages. Once this is deleted ep/chap/char pages should each have a see also section with the other two of those pages listed, though, since they do not appear to be interlinked well. --erachima talk 06:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with only four articles reason. DragonZero (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2009 (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:Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area

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 discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is an arbitrary list based off an article that is entirely WP:OR. There is no conceivable way of making this template work to include the hundreds of cities/towns in the D.C. Metro area. Further, the template does not help readers better understand the places within the B-W area or their relationships to each other. The pre-existing Category:Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area does a better job indexing and sorting settlements. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 12 days with no objections to delete. -21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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:QuoteLeft

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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:QuoteLeft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant to other, superior pull-quote templates ({{Cquote}} and {{Rquote}}), does not conform to WP:MOSQUOTE (blue text?), and is crucially not used in any pages. Appears to want a corresponding {{QuoteRight}} (see Documentation section) which does not exist. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:55, 16 April 2009 (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.