Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

April 5

Template:Cheesepuff

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) 05:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used by User:Dipotassitrimanganate as nobody else is interested in using it. See Pages that link to "Template:Cheesepuff".

Note: Please substitute the template on User:Dipotassitrimanganate before deleting it. -- IRP ☎ 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Not useful to the encyclopedia by any standard, and the page was apparently created for use by a single user. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:46, 8 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:Droogie

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) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, Xygni was deleted, the other links are irrelevant. Tassedethe (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the links are relevant to the topic (one is a redirect to a disambiguation page, one is a deleted article, and four—which are linked misleadingly only because of the page title—are articles about unrelated topics). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Droogie previously too got deleted (log entry; it was a page about a non-notable band). —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:49, 8 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:Thorbjørn Jagland

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) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thorbjørn Jagland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox goes way beyond of what the realm of a naxbox should do. There are no subarticles ot Thorbjørn Jagland. The problem lies in the navbox including Council of Europe because Jagland is a candidate for its presidency, linking to the Norwegian Parliament because he has been its president, linking to the Workers' Youth Leage (Norway) for him once being its chairman, linking to all cabinets he has sat in, and linking to the AUF membership scandal simply because he was called to witness in the case. If this is allowed, all the articles in question will be run down by navboxes. Instead, a naxbox for presidents of the Norwegian Parliament, presidents of the Norwegian Nobel Committee should be created. None of his books are notable enough for their own articles. The only incident with directly relates to Jagland is the "Bongo from Congo"-affair. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Creator of template now blocked. Punkmorten (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really can't see a way to properly use this navbox. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not enough material directly related to the topic to warrant a navbox. The function that this template is carrying out, which is to link to organizations and incidents related to a person, is fulfilled by in-text links. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:42, 8 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:Uw-rollbackremoved

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 snowball delete. Acalamari 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-rollbackremoved (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rollback removals happen so infrequently, there's no reason why an admin can't use a hand written note, rather than a big ominous template that looks like a block notice. A friendly discussion with the user is a much better idea in the majority of cases than a big, impersonal template notice. We should generally try to be communicating, not escalating. Mr.Z-man 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Mr.Z-man. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete removal should be explained. BJ^Talk 00:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If an administrator is removing somebody's rollback rights, I should hope they take the time to write a personal message and give tips for the user to improve. Malinaccier (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We need less options for lazy admins, not more. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. I agree 100%. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. No need to come up with unique reasoning; it's been covered above. Frank | talk 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's akin to a de-sysop template. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per nom. The whole point of the template is to help inform, not intimidate; it would be a lot better if the removing administrator also took the time to add why he/she removed rollback in the first place...Cheers. I'^mperator 13:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely agree with the nom. prashanthns (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and brimstone. What everyone above me said; the mentality behind anyone who'd use a template message in a sensitive situation like this embodies Wikipedia at its worst. – iride scent 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Don't template the regulars. --Thin boy 00 @159, i.e. 02:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Situations like this are for hand written notes, not for boilerplate templates. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:59, 6 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.