Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as housekeeping. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Info artista musical

Not a template per se, but an article written in template namespace and then used on the actual article page - I've moved the information to the article, so the information on the template is now redundant, and the template was only used on a single page Jeodesic 00:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as housekeeping; this isn't a template, it's an article, and as the content has now been integrated in the relevant article, this template is superfluous. Melsaran (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G6 — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 12:36, 4 October 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Only used on one page - redundant given the "clean up" tag - if a page requires clean up, whether or not it used to be considered "good" is irrelevant. daniel folsom 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If its kept it should be standardized with ambox. Atropos 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Why not just use the normal cleanup template? •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete blatant cleanuptemplatecruft; this is exactly the same as {{cleanup}} except that it says the article has "regressed" in quality (a very subjective thing, which is also totally irrelevant to the reader). Melsaran (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete - use {{cleanup}} or other more specific template instead, and if there is information in old versions, that can be commented on on the talk page of the article in question. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 12:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Yahel Guhan 06:17, 6 October 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to only two articles, with 13 redlinks, most of which are likely not notable enough for articles. szyslak 05:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep It will be useful once the articles are created. No point deleting it if it will be recreated--Phoenix 15 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- But those articles may never be created. I figure it's not difficult to re-create this template once that happens, which could be years from now. szyslak 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nav templates exist to aid navigation between articles, which this one currently doesn't do. It would take all of five minutes to recreate this when or if it becomes viable in the future, but in the meantime it serves no purpose. PC78 11:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - a nav box with only one bluelink isn't useful. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 12:29, 4 October 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This template is not used. No pages link here. The category it was put in no longer exists. It has little use; all it does is put a box around a category tree, which can easily be done manually. Also, as far as I can see, it does work. Putting {{Categorytree|Categories}} should produce this:

[–] Categories

[+] Eponymous categories

[+] Parent categories

[+] Categories by topic

[+] Categories by type

[+] Wikipedia categorization

[+] Category namespace templates

Instead it produces this:

All subcategories

[+] Categories

This could easily be fixed, but there is no reason I can see to keep this. — bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 02:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think we should be reluctant to destroy older systems. Lets simply add it for the ones listed. The supercategory can be fixed too --for some reason it was not moved into Category:Navigational templatesDGG (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is not an "older system" it was created on September 20, 2007. There is nothing here that would be "destroyed". It just has some simple formatting that can easily be duplicated and does not require a template. Even if this is deleted, the CategoryTree extension will still work. –bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Redundant, broken, and unused. Atropos 22:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, impractical. >Radiant< 11:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This template could be altered to work with substitution, but with transclusion it works not. Gracenotes^T § 21:03, 1 October 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Proof is a huge self-reference and somewhat non-neutral when it says that the "proofs are considered interesting in themselves," almost as if it is justifying the articles existence (there have been objections to the notability of proofs in the past). Otheruses can handle clarification between the notable topic and the proof of the notable topic (ie, This article is about the proof of foo. For information about foo itself, see foo. Atropos 03:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, use {{seemain}} instead. Stating "this article is interesting" at the top of an article isn't a very good approach. >Radiant< 11:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Radiant!; unnecessarily detailed/compliacted, we don't need an ugly box at the top of an article when we can just use {{seemain}}. It should be self-evident from the article that it is about mathematical proof. Melsaran (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete and use {{seemain}} — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but not necessarily use {{seemain}}. I was horrified to see that it was proposed for deletion, but after really thinking about it it does seem useless, if not bad. However, please do not discourage the ArticleName/Proof idea. Main articles are great, but sometimes you need a proof that's bound to an article, to support it. — Ben pcc 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That actually contradicts naming conventions, and they should be moved to Proof of Article Name, like how Transportation in Azerbaijan is not at Azerbaijan/Transportation. They also aren't actual subpages, because this has been disabled in the article space. Atropos 02:17, 5 October 2007 (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.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unused. --Carnildo 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- The templates were created just two weeks ago, appear to be useful, and may transcluded in the future. Note that Special:Whatlinkshere does not indicate whether the templates are being used via substitution. John254 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that the following templates are transcluded into the article HAZMAT Class 1 Explosives: Template:HAZMAT Cat 1, Template:HAZMAT Cat 1-1, Template:HAZMAT Cat 1-2, Template:HAZMAT Cat 1-3, Template:HAZMAT Cat 1-4, Template:HAZMAT Cat 1-5, and Template:HAZMAT Cat 1-6. Additionally, these templates were transcluded into the article at the time they were nominated for deletion. Speedy keep due to a factually incorrect nomination. John254 03:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, HAZMAT Class 2 Gases contains transclusions of the following templates: Template:HAZMAT Cat 2-1, Template:HAZMAT Cat 2-2, Template:HAZMAT Cat 2-2 Alternate, Template:HAZMAT Cat 2-3, and Template:HAZMAT Cat 2-3 Alternate. These transclusions also existed at the time Carnildo nominated these templates for deletion. Far from being "unused", the deletion of these templates would actually leave large numbers of red links in several articles. John254 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep - these look like useful templates to me — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim} ^dagnabbit!) 12:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep per John254. Rocket000 06:32, 8 October 2007 (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.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 30

[edit] Template:Info artista musical

[edit] Template:Regression

[edit] Template:ArkansasStateBasketballCoach

[edit] Template:Categorytree

[edit] Template:Proof

[edit] Template:Hazardous Material Placards and all sub-templates

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search