Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 27

< February 26	February 28 >

February 27

Template:Standard support

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. looks like a G7 on top of the usual arguments.. Happy‑melon 21:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Standard support (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to Template:Layout engines. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The intent of this prototype template was to fix the vocabulary problem. The problem is that speaking about "layout engine" is false. Particularly for Comparison of layout engines (ECMAScript) and Comparison of layout engines (HTML 5) which compares respectively ECMAScript engines and "browser engines" (i.e layout engine + script engine), to be precise. As an example, the ecmascript comparison page says Webkit's engine is JavaScriptCore. But there are afaik at least four pluggable engines : JavaScriptCore, Squirrelfish, V8 and Nitro. Thus, I'd rather rename Comparison of layout engines (ECMAScript) into Comparison of ECMAScript engines, (I don't know about Comparison of layout engines (HTML 5) really), separate the two lines of Template:Layout engines, and rename the "comparison of layout engines" by something like "web standards support" or "comparison of browser engines". What's your take on it ? --Fenring (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the "inventor" of the template... remove it, becauso too little peolple aant to talk about the creation of a new/replacement of a template which is not need it... so - do it ;( mabdul 0=* 03:29, 28 February 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:Hikaru no Go

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. Happy‑melon 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hikaru no Go (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Excluding the author link, this navbox only links together three articles, one of which (the media list) is an inappropriate split per WP:ANIME consensus. The series could probably support three sublists (definitely a chapter and an episode list, maybe a character list), and at such time as these get created, the necessity of a navbox can be revisited. Until then, though, there's no harm in deleting it. Oh, and can anyone tell me why the navbox is broken at the bottom of Hikaru no Go? I'm not seeing anything in the source of either the template or the article that would be causing it... am I just blind? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:34, 27 February 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)} 21:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless right now. We should wait for when we will have enough spin-out articles to re-create that template again. --KrebMarkt 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really an unnecessary navigation box for a fairly small subset of articles.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's not enough articles covering the territory to require a map. (Also, if we're going to carp, it's missing a co-author on the main series.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? The template already links the author; there is no coauthor (though there is an illustrator and a technical Go supervisor). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 7 March 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:CatscratchNav

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. Happy‑melon 21:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this template should also be deleted. Although it predates the redundant Template:Catscratch, on further investigating I realized that neither Navbox is useful. Most pages relating to the show Catscratch were merged into the main article, making any Navbox no useless. Aside from that this template is not used anywhere on Wikipedia, which is one of the accepted reasons for template deletion. Danleary25 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant, not enough articles for use. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 27 February 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:Catscratch

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. Happy‑melon 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has a number of problems which meet Wikipedia's reasons for deletion 1)It's redundant. Template:CatscratchNav has already existed for years (although it is not used and should be deleted itself, but that's not part of this discussion) 2)The template is not used. It was never placed on any of the pages it links to (except one). Which brings me to: 3)Half the links it uses go to the same page. For instance all the characters list to the main article of the television show. I believe this is sufficient reason to delete the template Danleary25 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant, not enough articles for use. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 27 February 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:Infobox Poem

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 keep. Erik9 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Poem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, partially implemented and error-ridden template. 67.101.7.230 (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The poetry project never had the chance to fully adapt the infobox or begin implementing it. We have tested it at "Annabel Lee" but the project has hills and valleys of activity. If it is "error-ridden" it gives us an opportunity to fix it, not delete it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with proviso that it get properly adapted, it looks like it might be a very useful variant. Collect (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harm from this? --Abd (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I Have updated it to use the Infobox Meta Template, It should be easier to fix now. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does need cleanup, but consistent with purpose of other works-based templates in Category:Arts and culture infobox templates. Perhaps it could eventually become part of a super-infobox for all literary works (equivalent to what {{Infobox Officeholder}} does for all kinds of politicians), but that's premature and would likely needs much project discussion and planning work. Dl2000 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 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.