The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{
Geobox}}
. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{
Geobox}}
. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Disambig}}, usused MBisanz talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Poorly formed, old warning, redundant to {{ Nn-warn}} unused. MBisanz talk 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unused, obscure template that is better kept an article (which I made it). MBisanz talk 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Obsolete, non-standard template that is really ugly and redundant to other templates. MBisanz talk 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Repeat vandal. — Spellcast ( talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This template is transcluded on all cardinal pages, but the only individual information it contains is the see of the cardinal. The rest of the template (the three styles) are filled in automatically and identically for each cardinal. So this template contains extremely little specific info for the articles it is placed on, while the general info is not very encyclopedic and not important for any individual biography (the "correct" way to address cardinals is a topic for the general Cardinal (Catholicism) page, not for each individual page). There is no use for this template on the pages of individual cardinals (there already is a template infobox cardinalbiog, which contains the see and much more info, so nothing is lost by deleting this template). — Fram ( talk) 08:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I complitely disagree with who want to delate this template. If the problems is that it countains only a few informations we'd better to improve it instead of thinkink about its delation. Moreover it's also aesthetically beutiful. -- Andreabrugiony ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This template contains information that is largely redundant to a pre-existing template, {{ Infobox Broadcast}}, and was created in ignorance of the efforts of other editors to reach a consensus on how to include information on the upcoming U.S. switch from analog to digital broadcasting in the existing template. It was composed in the singular POV of its creator, without input from other editors of related articles. — Rollosmokes ( talk) 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Replaced by Template:Adw. Old and non-standard. tgies ( talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be old and abandoned. I think someone was trying to come up with a clever way to discourage editing of the opening paragraph of Pink Floyd. Dates from March 2007. — A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-standard, ancient blocking template. Superseded by more specific templates that actually explain how long someone is blocked for and the exact reason they are blocked.
MBisanz
talk
02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Old template, used on 3 pages. Confuses the level of permanence of a block per Arbcom (which requires a community decision to overturn) and a block by administrators, which any administrator may overturn. Superseded by other, better templates. MBisanz talk 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unused, old, nonstandard blocking template. Doesn't describe unblock reasons, block length, etc. Superseded by UTM scheme. MBisanz talk 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-standard obsolete blocking template. Superseded by UTM, not in use in current scheme, fails to describe how to be unblocked. MBisanz talk 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{
Geobox}}
. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{
Geobox}}
. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Disambig}}, usused MBisanz talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Poorly formed, old warning, redundant to {{ Nn-warn}} unused. MBisanz talk 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unused, obscure template that is better kept an article (which I made it). MBisanz talk 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Obsolete, non-standard template that is really ugly and redundant to other templates. MBisanz talk 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Repeat vandal. — Spellcast ( talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This template is transcluded on all cardinal pages, but the only individual information it contains is the see of the cardinal. The rest of the template (the three styles) are filled in automatically and identically for each cardinal. So this template contains extremely little specific info for the articles it is placed on, while the general info is not very encyclopedic and not important for any individual biography (the "correct" way to address cardinals is a topic for the general Cardinal (Catholicism) page, not for each individual page). There is no use for this template on the pages of individual cardinals (there already is a template infobox cardinalbiog, which contains the see and much more info, so nothing is lost by deleting this template). — Fram ( talk) 08:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I complitely disagree with who want to delate this template. If the problems is that it countains only a few informations we'd better to improve it instead of thinkink about its delation. Moreover it's also aesthetically beutiful. -- Andreabrugiony ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This template contains information that is largely redundant to a pre-existing template, {{ Infobox Broadcast}}, and was created in ignorance of the efforts of other editors to reach a consensus on how to include information on the upcoming U.S. switch from analog to digital broadcasting in the existing template. It was composed in the singular POV of its creator, without input from other editors of related articles. — Rollosmokes ( talk) 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Replaced by Template:Adw. Old and non-standard. tgies ( talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be old and abandoned. I think someone was trying to come up with a clever way to discourage editing of the opening paragraph of Pink Floyd. Dates from March 2007. — A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty Woohoo! 06:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-standard, ancient blocking template. Superseded by more specific templates that actually explain how long someone is blocked for and the exact reason they are blocked.
MBisanz
talk
02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Old template, used on 3 pages. Confuses the level of permanence of a block per Arbcom (which requires a community decision to overturn) and a block by administrators, which any administrator may overturn. Superseded by other, better templates. MBisanz talk 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unused, old, nonstandard blocking template. Doesn't describe unblock reasons, block length, etc. Superseded by UTM scheme. MBisanz talk 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-standard obsolete blocking template. Superseded by UTM, not in use in current scheme, fails to describe how to be unblocked. MBisanz talk 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)