Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 27 April 29 >

April 28, 2006

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 deleted by

User:Doc glasgow. Circeus 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:User_Unamerican and others

Template:User Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Against Americanisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Not Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These userbox templates could be considered offensive and exist in some cases solely to show anti-American sentiment. It could also be considered offensive that these boxes use an upside down United States Flag. I also see no other such boxes for other countries. Perhaps a better alternative, such as to the "against Americanisation" box would be to be for allowing nations to maintain their individual cultures. —Aiden 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't these userboxes get deleted a long time ago? I thought I remembered them from somewhere.... Homestarmy 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and delete any future un- and anti- boxes degrading ANY nation or its flag. These are divisive and inflammatory to the extreme, and is meant to be. WP is not a soapbox. Keep political bias out of this project, please. Nhprman 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Bullshit, there is absolutely nothing offensive about them. --Dragon695 21:36, 29 April 2006 (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 page.
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. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ancient Greece topics

Template:Ancient Greece topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another large collection of links; an

indiscriminate collection of data. Septentrionalis 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep, it's for navigational purposes, not data collection. While at the moment it is not heavily used. it most certainly can be, and provided it makes it through this TfD, I'll ensure it is. PoptartKing 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I shall declare I have a vested interest in the template as I created it. I am aware of its failings as I listed on the talk page. It is however, not an indiscriminate collection of links (see the Ancient Egypt template, my inspiration for this one). --Knucmo2 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is used in this case for navigational purposes as stated by PopartKing above. This template can be improved. --
(talk) 00:29, 29 April 2006 (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 page.
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 Circeus 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epochs

Template:Epochs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is unencyclopedic and nonsensical, POV towards some kind of New Age mysticism, and it also contains a copyrighted image. I suggest deleting it. Lovelac7 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Of the few pages which include the only on topic inclusion is
    Root Race and removed from other pages. --Salix alba (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2006 (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 page.
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 Circeus 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star-planetbox primary

Template:Star-planetbox primary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox secondary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template sequence for providing extrasolar planetary system information has poor semantics: the first planet in the list is handled differently to all subsequent planets, which could be confusing for editors and makes maintenance of the list more difficult (e.g. if a planet is to be inserted before the first one in the list). The table markup in this case is more concise and simpler to use than these templates, so I suggest subst:ing the instances in articles, then removing this template sequence. Chaos syndrome 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. ILovEPlankton 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Chaos Syndrome that table markup is simpler for this. Worldtraveller 16:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I made this template so all stars with extrasolar planets won't be different. With over 175 star's with planets, always using an open infobox could be not the same as the others. But if you don't like something, fix it! — HurricaneDevon @ 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Eluchil404 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this kind of table is probably unnecessary for single-planet systems; it is more useful as a quick overview of the planets in multiple systems where the planets have separate articles. Also the table caption is probably unnecessary too, given its placement in the "planetary system" section of articles, it is fairly obvious what the table is describing. Chaos syndrome 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup—The standardization that this brings is a good thing. Ardric47 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - problem is here the standardisation comes at the cost of bloated and confusing markup. I've been thinking it may be better to just have a template to insert the table header row and then use table markup to add the rest of the rows, which I think is a better solution than a complex template sequence or creating n templates for systems with up to n planets. Chaos syndrome 09:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the creator of this template has now added {{Planetbox-1p}}, {{Planetbox-2p}}, {{Planetbox-3p}}, {{Planetbox-4p}}, which makes this template sequence redundant anyway. Chaos syndrome 21:06, 1 May 2006 (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 page.
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 all deleted, no userpages broken. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Babel-48

Template:Babel-48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There was a

Babel-X}} to provide the same functionality. This TfD does not include Babel-1 through Babel-20 because they are in more common use and might theoretically be needed for other language 'transplants'. Note that I also changed Babel-16 through Babel-20 into redirects to Babel-X as a test case... theoretically all of the smaller Babel boxes could be changed to do so, but I am not advocating that currently. CBDunkerson 11:31, 28 April 2006 (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 page.
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 --Cyde Weys 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Olde

Template:User Olde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Useless and silly, not used on any pages. Night Gyr 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ILovEPlankton 16:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, creator didn't even get Aulde Anglisch correct. —
    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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_28&oldid=1138690360"