- 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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Buenos Aires Barrio ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to more full feature geographical location templates, like {{
geobox}} and {{
infobox settlement}}. All Buenos Aires barrios are currently using {{infobox settlement}}.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
23:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think conversion should wait until after a discussion is closed, not before one is begun. Yes, Settlement is fully featured, but just because we can use the all-in-one template doesn't mean we shouldn't consider other options and discuss them first.
Ruodyssey (
talk)
02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I will keep that in mind in the future. Let me know if you want me to convert them back, or to something else. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. No need to revert, since you took care to make sure the name/type fields are consistent, which is really my primary concern. I think if Project Argentina is not too concerned with having settlement-specific templates, then there's no need. - Ruodyssey ( talk) 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I will keep that in mind in the future. Let me know if you want me to convert them back, or to something else. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Argentina has been notified. Ruodyssey ( talk) 05:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Mariano( t/ c) 19:23, 4 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete.The creator has moved the template to his/her user space. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:PageMaker ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete. Orphaned template that has no obvious use. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete looks like someone's personal attempt to make a Page Creation Wizard. 76.66.192.73 ( talk) 07:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator has moved the template to his/her user space. I have tagged the current redirect for speedy deletion, as it serves no purpose. Cnilep ( talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was Discussion moved to WP:MFD, since this is a userbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused userbox with non-standard name. WOSlinker ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was Discussion moved to WP:MFD, since this is a userbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused template with huge picture. WOSlinker ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was Discussion moved to WP:MFD, since this is a userbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused and odd looking userbox with non-standard name. WOSlinker ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete per author approval, and can be userfied upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Ballet2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete. An unused copy of Template:WikiProject Ballet. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- This can be T3ed as an unused duplicate of an existing template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free (I created while working on a now-suspended effort to differentiate slightly the WikiProject Dance and Ballet templates; I will recreate it if and when I get back to it.) — Robert Greer ( talk) 13:36, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:MySchool Results ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Delete. Abandoned, orphan template. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:55, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Cantorion ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is used in external links to link to a landing page which may conflicts with WP:EL See edit history. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Provided it's freely-available, sheet music related to a given subject would seem to be "uniquely useful" as defined by WP:EL. Contrary to the arguments made by the IP who speedied it, there does not seem to be a COI here as the template's author does not appear to have any connection to the site; furthermore, sign-up does not appear to be required to download the sheet music (I followed this link and could download the file there without ever registering). As for advertising, we certainly direct readers to sites which have more advertising than are available on that site. I rather think that this template should be widely promoted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with above. Sign up is not required, and advertising is certainly not an issue. ed g2s • talk 09:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I don't see an EL violation here at all, but I do generally think that templates should only be used for external linking in special cases, such as very widely used sites. That doesn't appear to be the case here. However, there would seem to be considerably more articles on which this could be used, so I'll go with Chris Cunningham's notion that it should be more widely promoted. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep I agree with the above on keeping and promoting more use. As mentioned, it's a unique case and advertising is not an issue. Airplaneman ✈ 04:06, 10 April 2010 (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.
Violates Userbox Guidelines Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate about the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page or in a Wikipedia:Deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted on MfD by nominator. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Violates Userbox Guidelines Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 section.
The result of the discussion was Merge and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Foodbox ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Deprecated, <50 transclusions. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, the deprecation was never actually discussed. Certainly {{ Nutritional value}} is not an adequate (or even compatible) replacement right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Merge and then delete - I believe
{{ Nutritional value}}is a more than adequate replacement; see Template:Nutritional value#Full syntax. It provides the same functions as{{ Foodbox}}, along with many more. Replacing "foodbox" with "nutritional value" will benefit in this regard. Having one, not two, templates is also simpler. — Air plane man— 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)- On a side note, adding "image" and "serving size" parameters to "nutritional value" would be nice, so I've changed my vote accordingly. — Air plane man— 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to {{ Nutritional value}} as suggested above. The additional fields will benefit the other template -- I'm surprised serving size isn't already there -- and the redundancy will be eliminated. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Buenos Aires Barrio ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to more full feature geographical location templates, like {{
geobox}} and {{
infobox settlement}}. All Buenos Aires barrios are currently using {{infobox settlement}}.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
23:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think conversion should wait until after a discussion is closed, not before one is begun. Yes, Settlement is fully featured, but just because we can use the all-in-one template doesn't mean we shouldn't consider other options and discuss them first.
Ruodyssey (
talk)
02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I will keep that in mind in the future. Let me know if you want me to convert them back, or to something else. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. No need to revert, since you took care to make sure the name/type fields are consistent, which is really my primary concern. I think if Project Argentina is not too concerned with having settlement-specific templates, then there's no need. - Ruodyssey ( talk) 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I will keep that in mind in the future. Let me know if you want me to convert them back, or to something else. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Argentina has been notified. Ruodyssey ( talk) 05:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Mariano( t/ c) 19:23, 4 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete.The creator has moved the template to his/her user space. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:PageMaker ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete. Orphaned template that has no obvious use. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 18:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete looks like someone's personal attempt to make a Page Creation Wizard. 76.66.192.73 ( talk) 07:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The creator has moved the template to his/her user space. I have tagged the current redirect for speedy deletion, as it serves no purpose. Cnilep ( talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was Discussion moved to WP:MFD, since this is a userbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused userbox with non-standard name. WOSlinker ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was Discussion moved to WP:MFD, since this is a userbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused template with huge picture. WOSlinker ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was Discussion moved to WP:MFD, since this is a userbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused and odd looking userbox with non-standard name. WOSlinker ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete per author approval, and can be userfied upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:WikiProject Ballet2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete. An unused copy of Template:WikiProject Ballet. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- This can be T3ed as an unused duplicate of an existing template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free (I created while working on a now-suspended effort to differentiate slightly the WikiProject Dance and Ballet templates; I will recreate it if and when I get back to it.) — Robert Greer ( talk) 13:36, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:MySchool Results ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Delete. Abandoned, orphan template. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:55, 2 April 2010 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Cantorion ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is used in external links to link to a landing page which may conflicts with WP:EL See edit history. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Provided it's freely-available, sheet music related to a given subject would seem to be "uniquely useful" as defined by WP:EL. Contrary to the arguments made by the IP who speedied it, there does not seem to be a COI here as the template's author does not appear to have any connection to the site; furthermore, sign-up does not appear to be required to download the sheet music (I followed this link and could download the file there without ever registering). As for advertising, we certainly direct readers to sites which have more advertising than are available on that site. I rather think that this template should be widely promoted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with above. Sign up is not required, and advertising is certainly not an issue. ed g2s • talk 09:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I don't see an EL violation here at all, but I do generally think that templates should only be used for external linking in special cases, such as very widely used sites. That doesn't appear to be the case here. However, there would seem to be considerably more articles on which this could be used, so I'll go with Chris Cunningham's notion that it should be more widely promoted. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep I agree with the above on keeping and promoting more use. As mentioned, it's a unique case and advertising is not an issue. Airplaneman ✈ 04:06, 10 April 2010 (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.
Violates Userbox Guidelines Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate about the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page or in a Wikipedia:Deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted on MfD by nominator. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Violates Userbox Guidelines Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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 section.
The result of the discussion was Merge and delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Foodbox ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Deprecated, <50 transclusions. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, the deprecation was never actually discussed. Certainly {{ Nutritional value}} is not an adequate (or even compatible) replacement right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Merge and then delete - I believe
{{ Nutritional value}}is a more than adequate replacement; see Template:Nutritional value#Full syntax. It provides the same functions as{{ Foodbox}}, along with many more. Replacing "foodbox" with "nutritional value" will benefit in this regard. Having one, not two, templates is also simpler. — Air plane man— 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)- On a side note, adding "image" and "serving size" parameters to "nutritional value" would be nice, so I've changed my vote accordingly. — Air plane man— 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Merge to {{ Nutritional value}} as suggested above. The additional fields will benefit the other template -- I'm surprised serving size isn't already there -- and the redundancy will be eliminated. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (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.