The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Maxim, citing "housekeeping". Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The NHLTeamSeason template is used for team seasons. – Nurmsook! ( talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Single-use template. Should be subst'ed and deleted.. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Nabla ( talk) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the deletion of Dogs of War (rugby), this template is now orphaned. Furthermore, even if Dogs of War (rugby) had not been deleted, this tournament, and hence its table, would not be notable anyway. This template should be deleted ASAP, if not speedily. – Pee Jay 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the deletion of Dogs of War (rugby), this template is now orphaned, except for a redirect to it and a deletion request for that redirect. Furthermore, even if Dogs of War (rugby) had not been deleted, this tournament, and hence its table, would not be notable anyway. This template should be deleted ASAP, if not speedily. – Pee Jay 11:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 14:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This template is incomplete, unhelpful and effectively superceded by Template:Jewellery Materials. Hyperdeath ( talk) 11:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate on the above:
The template is divided into two sections. The first of these sections "Gems" is superceded by Template:Jewellery Materials, which is more extensive and better constructed. Furthermore, the division between this and other section is extremely bizarre, with diamond, sapphire and amethyst all placed outside.
The second section "Crystals" is incomplete and inaccurate. For example, it lists chalcedony, which is cryptocrystalline, and thus would never exhibit visible crystals (except as inclusions). The few minerals listed are completely arbitrary. For example, rhodochrosite is listed, whilst many vastly more common minerals are omitted. Furthermore, if this section was to be "completed", it would be so large as to be essentially useless. (To gain a rough idea of the problem, consider this list of minerals, whilst bearing in mind that the majority of the substances listed are capable of forming crystals).
For the above reasons, I believe that this section is incorrigible, and that any effort to improve it would be better invested in improving Template:Jewellery Materials. Hyperdeath ( talk)
I have now added all the gemstones listed in
Template:Gems & Crystals to
Template:Jewellery Materials (with the exception or pyrite and rhodocrosite, which don't really belong anywhere, except in specific mineralogical categories).
Hyperdeath (
talk) 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Maxim, citing "housekeeping". Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The NHLTeamSeason template is used for team seasons. – Nurmsook! ( talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Single-use template. Should be subst'ed and deleted.. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete Nabla ( talk) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the deletion of Dogs of War (rugby), this template is now orphaned. Furthermore, even if Dogs of War (rugby) had not been deleted, this tournament, and hence its table, would not be notable anyway. This template should be deleted ASAP, if not speedily. – Pee Jay 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla ( talk) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the deletion of Dogs of War (rugby), this template is now orphaned, except for a redirect to it and a deletion request for that redirect. Furthermore, even if Dogs of War (rugby) had not been deleted, this tournament, and hence its table, would not be notable anyway. This template should be deleted ASAP, if not speedily. – Pee Jay 11:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle ( talk) 14:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This template is incomplete, unhelpful and effectively superceded by Template:Jewellery Materials. Hyperdeath ( talk) 11:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate on the above:
The template is divided into two sections. The first of these sections "Gems" is superceded by Template:Jewellery Materials, which is more extensive and better constructed. Furthermore, the division between this and other section is extremely bizarre, with diamond, sapphire and amethyst all placed outside.
The second section "Crystals" is incomplete and inaccurate. For example, it lists chalcedony, which is cryptocrystalline, and thus would never exhibit visible crystals (except as inclusions). The few minerals listed are completely arbitrary. For example, rhodochrosite is listed, whilst many vastly more common minerals are omitted. Furthermore, if this section was to be "completed", it would be so large as to be essentially useless. (To gain a rough idea of the problem, consider this list of minerals, whilst bearing in mind that the majority of the substances listed are capable of forming crystals).
For the above reasons, I believe that this section is incorrigible, and that any effort to improve it would be better invested in improving Template:Jewellery Materials. Hyperdeath ( talk)
I have now added all the gemstones listed in
Template:Gems & Crystals to
Template:Jewellery Materials (with the exception or pyrite and rhodocrosite, which don't really belong anywhere, except in specific mineralogical categories).
Hyperdeath (
talk) 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)