< January 24 | January 26 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A non-notable template for a non-notable video game. -- Jonny2x4 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Simpsons character by Night Gyr and Crazytales
Incomplete nonsense template created by someone with questionable contributions. Correct template exists as Template:Simpsons character-- Natalie 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedied as nonsense. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
And redirected. ~ Crazytales (IP locations!) 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Single use re-direct of the the standard Infobox City template. MJCdetroit 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No longer used, and obsolete now that the "current-collaboration" parameter has been added to {{ WPMILHIST}}. -- Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Concern that this essay may not reflect the opinions of many Wikipedians or may be unbalanced". So friggin' what? Essays don't require a "quorum" of Wikipedians to be enacted or anything. If you don't like an essay's tone, {{ sofixit}}. Create your own essay, or go to dispute resolution. There really is no point in adding NPOV tags to pages that are supposed to represent opinions. >Radiant< 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This template was a duplicate of {{ Infobox Television episode}}. It did not add anything over this "parent" template, I therefore replaced it on all it's pages as part of a drive to limit the amount of different episode boxes -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The template is a mess and I am not sure it adds value. It currently contains a random collection of items: MEMRI is a pro-Israel Arabic media monitoring organization, Mosaic is just an highbrow documentary series that has done work on "Jihadi" groups but so have PBS's Frontline and BBC's Panorama, and SITE Institute is barely notable. The template is also poorly named. 70.48.241.47 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was subst and delete RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no point in using these templates, when you can simply type out the link. They're also not being used. -- NE2 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. For the last time, there was never consensus to delete these anyway. If no consensus is reached, I will have this nomination closed. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Are these just meant to be short cuts for typing out the full name of a single link? These are not what templates are supposed to be for. -- Polaron | Talk 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
subst
, thus replacing the template call with a regular link when saving. It's so much easier to type {{subst:IRT}}
than [[Independent Rapid Transit|IRT]]
. I would rather they not be deleted, but this is purely for convenience while editing; they don't serve a purpose beyond this.
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail)
22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Comment. Because we are worried about straining the servers, we should keep the templates, but remember to sub them. We should add a note on templates like these to make sure they are subbed. And these templates are being used. However, they are subbed, not transcluded. That's why there arent as much links as before. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
subst
, but they tend to be more complex and dynamic than these (e.g.
Template:Uw-vandalism4im). These nominated templates do nothing but insert piped links, which would only change if their target articles were renamed, and this is highly unlikely. Thus, their encyclopedic usefulness is very limited. As per
WP:TFD: "…proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever… the template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic)". From my point of view, these templates are not very helpful or noteworthy.
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail)
01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC){{MNRR}}
, use [[MNRR]]
, producing
MNRR). And if eliminating redirects or disambiguation is desirable, that's easy to do. It's an editor's issue whether he or she types out links and uses piped links or not. And how many more articles would these things be used in? They were useful in the heyday of building NYCT articles; but as the articles are now beginning to mature, these templates of simple wikilinks will become less useful in subsequent uses anyway.
Tinlinkin
11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Airports in the United Kingdom}}, no reason for individual Scottish version since the CAA is UK-wide, thanks/ wangi 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Appears to be unused. As evidence, the template is broken as it uses the current calendar instead of the true one for July 2005. Also, there is no other template existing named "July 200x" for any other year -- After Midnight 0001 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
< January 24 | January 26 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A non-notable template for a non-notable video game. -- Jonny2x4 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Simpsons character by Night Gyr and Crazytales
Incomplete nonsense template created by someone with questionable contributions. Correct template exists as Template:Simpsons character-- Natalie 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedied as nonsense. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
And redirected. ~ Crazytales (IP locations!) 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Single use re-direct of the the standard Infobox City template. MJCdetroit 18:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No longer used, and obsolete now that the "current-collaboration" parameter has been added to {{ WPMILHIST}}. -- Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Concern that this essay may not reflect the opinions of many Wikipedians or may be unbalanced". So friggin' what? Essays don't require a "quorum" of Wikipedians to be enacted or anything. If you don't like an essay's tone, {{ sofixit}}. Create your own essay, or go to dispute resolution. There really is no point in adding NPOV tags to pages that are supposed to represent opinions. >Radiant< 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Circeus 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This template was a duplicate of {{ Infobox Television episode}}. It did not add anything over this "parent" template, I therefore replaced it on all it's pages as part of a drive to limit the amount of different episode boxes -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The template is a mess and I am not sure it adds value. It currently contains a random collection of items: MEMRI is a pro-Israel Arabic media monitoring organization, Mosaic is just an highbrow documentary series that has done work on "Jihadi" groups but so have PBS's Frontline and BBC's Panorama, and SITE Institute is barely notable. The template is also poorly named. 70.48.241.47 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was subst and delete RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no point in using these templates, when you can simply type out the link. They're also not being used. -- NE2 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. For the last time, there was never consensus to delete these anyway. If no consensus is reached, I will have this nomination closed. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk | contribs) 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Are these just meant to be short cuts for typing out the full name of a single link? These are not what templates are supposed to be for. -- Polaron | Talk 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
subst
, thus replacing the template call with a regular link when saving. It's so much easier to type {{subst:IRT}}
than [[Independent Rapid Transit|IRT]]
. I would rather they not be deleted, but this is purely for convenience while editing; they don't serve a purpose beyond this.
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail)
22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Comment. Because we are worried about straining the servers, we should keep the templates, but remember to sub them. We should add a note on templates like these to make sure they are subbed. And these templates are being used. However, they are subbed, not transcluded. That's why there arent as much links as before. -- Imdanumber1 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
subst
, but they tend to be more complex and dynamic than these (e.g.
Template:Uw-vandalism4im). These nominated templates do nothing but insert piped links, which would only change if their target articles were renamed, and this is highly unlikely. Thus, their encyclopedic usefulness is very limited. As per
WP:TFD: "…proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever… the template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic)". From my point of view, these templates are not very helpful or noteworthy.
Larry V (
talk |
e-mail)
01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC){{MNRR}}
, use [[MNRR]]
, producing
MNRR). And if eliminating redirects or disambiguation is desirable, that's easy to do. It's an editor's issue whether he or she types out links and uses piped links or not. And how many more articles would these things be used in? They were useful in the heyday of building NYCT articles; but as the articles are now beginning to mature, these templates of simple wikilinks will become less useful in subsequent uses anyway.
Tinlinkin
11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Airports in the United Kingdom}}, no reason for individual Scottish version since the CAA is UK-wide, thanks/ wangi 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Appears to be unused. As evidence, the template is broken as it uses the current calendar instead of the true one for July 2005. Also, there is no other template existing named "July 200x" for any other year -- After Midnight 0001 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)