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.
Strong Delete - If you look at the talk page of the user who created this template (
User talk:Scottarius) this was meant to accompany
Starboard Morning which is the only article the user created. The article was tagged for speedy deletion CSD A7 and deleted for being an unnotable band. BlowingTopHat21:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
So I request that this be deleted immediately because the accompanying article was speedily deleted, so this single-purpose template should be aswell. BlowingTopHat21:46, 22 March 2012 (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 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.
Oppose in this case the buildingness of the hut is not relevant, instead it is a different set of parameters. Should be merged with any other hut templates if they exist, to a general walking/climbing hut infobox. RichFarmbrough,
20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC).reply
Let's not merge this at all: the transclusions vary from
travel guides to disparate articles on projects or sites, and the buildings themselves seem not to be of particular note. It's hard to argue that any of the current transclusions would be worse off without an infobox.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
11:10, 22 March 2012 (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 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 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.
Okay, are you saying it is a
copyright violation or plagiarism?
Wikipedia-to-Wikipedia copying is one of the easiest kinds of copyvio. to fix; you don't even have to delete it. Or are you saying that it is unnecessary? Or is it, somehow, broken? If you need help with the template then please specify in more detail what's wrong and what you want to accomplish. Finally, if you want to get rid of it and the author of the template consents to its deletion, then he or she can get rid of it speedily simply by putting “{{db-author}}” on it. Please clarify.
Bwrs (
talk)
02:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The creator actually needs help with the "parent" infobox, instead of having everything they have made reduced to smoking rubble. I have opposed the prod on the article, support deletion of this infobox and help with fixing the other or finding a suitable merge target. RichFarmbrough,
20:53, 21 March 2012 (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 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.
Strong Delete - If you look at the talk page of the user who created this template (
User talk:Scottarius) this was meant to accompany
Starboard Morning which is the only article the user created. The article was tagged for speedy deletion CSD A7 and deleted for being an unnotable band. BlowingTopHat21:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)reply
So I request that this be deleted immediately because the accompanying article was speedily deleted, so this single-purpose template should be aswell. BlowingTopHat21:46, 22 March 2012 (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 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.
Oppose in this case the buildingness of the hut is not relevant, instead it is a different set of parameters. Should be merged with any other hut templates if they exist, to a general walking/climbing hut infobox. RichFarmbrough,
20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC).reply
Let's not merge this at all: the transclusions vary from
travel guides to disparate articles on projects or sites, and the buildings themselves seem not to be of particular note. It's hard to argue that any of the current transclusions would be worse off without an infobox.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
11:10, 22 March 2012 (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 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 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.
Okay, are you saying it is a
copyright violation or plagiarism?
Wikipedia-to-Wikipedia copying is one of the easiest kinds of copyvio. to fix; you don't even have to delete it. Or are you saying that it is unnecessary? Or is it, somehow, broken? If you need help with the template then please specify in more detail what's wrong and what you want to accomplish. Finally, if you want to get rid of it and the author of the template consents to its deletion, then he or she can get rid of it speedily simply by putting “{{db-author}}” on it. Please clarify.
Bwrs (
talk)
02:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)reply
The creator actually needs help with the "parent" infobox, instead of having everything they have made reduced to smoking rubble. I have opposed the prod on the article, support deletion of this infobox and help with fixing the other or finding a suitable merge target. RichFarmbrough,
20:53, 21 March 2012 (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 section.