Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 24

< November 23	November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Template:Hinduism[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was narrow delete, without prejudice to a request for userfication to reformulate into a new template. M a rtinp23 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useless template. There are others like template:Hinduism small and others for this purpose. --Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree completely with Madhava, many smaller templates regarding Hinduism are more purposeul. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Are we sure all general articles on Hinduism have proper templates that can replace this one? Why not modify this without deleting it? ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 13:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's huge.--D-Boy 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes I do think it should be deleted purely for the reason its very bulky and yet not very precise on its subjects and there are smaller template available which are more precise and in due time more can be created if needed. --Raj - सनातन धर्म 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Split the topics up.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lets avoid moltiplicating templates on exactly the same topic.--Aldux 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tis way to big...And I have never found it usefull in the first place.__Seadog ^♪ 20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or Reformulate... it is too big but it could be reformulated with Template:Navigation. (→Netscott) 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Reformulate. I find it useful, but a bit too big, and yes a bit repeatative, too. Nothing that can't be cured. - Aditya Kabir 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Reformulate - It can be of use if it is reorganised. Gaurasundara 17:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently, "useless" is in the eye of the beholder; it is included in about 270 articles. If some specific complaint is offered, or some rationale is provided, I'd be willing to reconsider my position. -- Mikeblas 22:48, 1 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:The Gamer Barnstar[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A template of a non-releated and spammish barnstar recently removed from Wikipedia:Barnstars. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless and informal. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stay. Wikipedia needs a template for gamers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.3.40 (talk • contribs)

Please explain why do you think good gamers should be awarded at the encyclopedia? Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:03, 1 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Local Government Areas[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template has no transclusions and has been succeeded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}. --◄§ĉҺɑʀκs ► 02:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has been upgraded --TheJosh 11:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant — Moondyne 13:37, 27 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Wisconsin Shopping Malls[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete after all transclusions are placed into Category:Shopping malls in Wisconsin M a rtinp23 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just deleted several tens of bvery similar generic mall articles, mostly the work of a single user, I don't think that a template encouraging more articles on shopping malls is a terribly good idea. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand your reticence to encourage mallcruft, I'm not sure I see the problem with a blue template (with one exception). If something is wrong with the articles, then perhaps you should bring them to AfD, but as long as they are legitimate, it seems like organising them is equally so. Maybe I'm missing something? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me, though, to be trying to do a job which would be better done by simply linking to a category. How many malls are there in Wisconsin? I'm guessing it runs into the hundreds at least, if not the thousands. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be hundreds of malls, but it seems that since we are only including notable ones, that is a non issue. By the same token, if they meet the criteria for inclusion, I'm not sure why they shouldn't be organised by template as well. Let me know... Tewfik^Talk 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to define "notable" is subjective and violates NPOV. Including every mall would render this template huge and useless. Better off just leaving it into a cateogry. Hbdragon88 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Hbdragon88. While I'm not against listing shopping malls, encouraging categorization will help cut down on anyone's urge to add non-notable ones into the template. -- Shiori 01:23, 1 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:New York City Subway IND Subway Lines[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used by the project or any pages and information is contained in the mega-navbox {{NYCS navbox}} --Dispenser 07:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is now redundant to an in-use template. -- Mikeblas 22:44, 1 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:New York City Subway BMT Subway Lines[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used by the project or any pages and information is contained in the mega-navbox {{NYCS navbox}} --Dispenser 07:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is now redundant to an in-use template. -- Mikeblas 22:44, 1 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:New York City Subway IRT Subway Lines[edit]

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete M a rtinp23 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used by the project or any pages and information is contained in the mega-navbox {{NYCS navbox}} --Dispenser 07:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is now redundant to an in-use template. -- Mikeblas 22:44, 1 December 2006 (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 page.