Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17[edit]

Template:NASA Mars spacecraft[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. —Cryptic 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Template:Mars spacecraft is a superior version as it includes Russian (and any other) missions as well. This navigation box is not currently being used in any article namespace. --Templationist 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if necessary, it would be better to subdivide missions by type or era than sponsor. Eluchil404 10:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someday there are enough missions to warrant a separate NASA nav template, this can be trivially recreated. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:42, 20 January 2007 (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:Saturn[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. David Kernow (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Template:Moons of Saturn is a superior version, and the show/hide toggle is sufficient to address any concerns that this version of the template will be 'too big' for some small articles. If this deletion is approved, a small number of articles will need to have their navigation template switched from this one to the superior one. --Templationist 23:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not well served by having two templates for the same job. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete Template:Moons of Saturn instead. Being able to toggle show hide doesn't fix the biggest problem of those of marginal-at-best utility navigation templates, the horrendous clutter which renders "What links here" and "Related changes" useless and the redundancy with categories. Gene Nygaard 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cf {{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Templationist. --Ckatz^chat _spy 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David Kernow (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2007 (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.

Template:Rodovid[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. —Cryptic 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template looks much too official, like it is a sister project. In fact, the wiki it links to has no wikipedia article itself. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI--Comment--Prior TfD withdrawn under misapprehension of this being a sister project. As it is not, it is essentially spam favoring this wiki based GED instead of common GEDCOM tech sites. The Rodovid article was apparently deleted on 26 October 2006. // FrankB

Delete with prejudice-- Not convinced any Geneology links should be tolerated, much less one flavor over another site favoring one GED site over another. The template contains an intolerable bad link (just fixed) as well, which pretty much indicates how little it is used. This (see text) indicates this is specific targeted advertising here on en.wikipedia. So I see it as a potential man-power drain on wikiediting if this were to catch on--as well as being boldly manipulative of our procedures.
I see no need in a general encyclopedia for any one GED site over another, save only for a general link to it's homepage iff an article existed for the site which is of course assuming it met notability guidelines. Any other GED links should be random by editor, not focused on one site over the others. // FrankB 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete Advertising template. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Banner templates are reserved for sister projects. -- Stbalbach 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading through m:Rodovid again, it's still unclear to me whether this is a sister (or at least WMF-sanctioned) project or not. Perhaps someone should edit the page at Meta to make it clearer on this matter? --ais523 17:21, 22 January 2007 (U T C)

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.

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. —Cryptic 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Satellites of Pluto[edit]

Template:Satellites of Pluto(edit talk links history)

Redundant. Template:Moons of Pluto and Eris(edit talk links history) already covers the content of this template, and it is more standardised too. If this deletion is approved, a small number of articles will need to have their navigation template switched from this one to the superior one. --Templationist 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the Show/Hide is removed from the better template. Xiner (talk, email) 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--need input from creator of {{Moons of Pluto and Eris}} whether that is feasible, but agree with xiner if that author can go with this. // FrankB 15:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template uses show/hide (and defaults to hide) because it forms part of the larger template {{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' irrespective of changes to other template. We don't need redundant templates. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. The template is fine, and is useful in the Pluto related articles. I use it often, and don't like the fact Eris is lumped in the new one.Something14 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Moons of Pluto and Eris}} was previously named "Solar System's dwarf planets and their moons" and featured Ceres as well as Pluto and Eris (here). Since Ceres, Pluto and Eris now regarded as dwarf planets, how about a reversion to this template...? (The symbols for Ceres and Pluto could also be added; not sure whether there is a symbol for Eris yet...) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reverting {{Moons of Pluto and Eris}} might help with the Pluto and Eris articles, but it would negatively impact on the master template ({{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}). The previous version was reworked for two reasons: first, Ceres has no moons, so it was inconsistent to list it while omitting Mercury and Venus from the master template. Secondly, having Ceres in with Pluto and Eris disrupted the order of the master template, while implying that Ceres is out past Neptune. (Currently, the master template is arranged in accordance with the actual order of the Solar System.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 11:17, 22 January 2007 (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:Moon groups of Jupiter[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. David Kernow (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moons of Jupiter is simply superior to this one, as it includes moon groups anyway. The show-hide toggle (which is defaulted to hide) will ensure that this template doesn't appear too bulky on small articles. If this deletion is approved, a large number of articles will need to have their navigation template switched from this one to the more comprehensive one. --Templationist 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems obvious that the other one is better.DGG 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG K a mope · talk · contributions 12:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hadn't run into the hide/show business previously, so was confused for a time, but clearly redundant. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:46, 20 January 2007 (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:MNroutebox[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. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated - replaced with Template:Infobox MN state highway a Minnesota specific template utilizing Template:infobox road. • master_son^{Lets talk} 05:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and superseded. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Station Attendant 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert A. West. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:16, 19 January 2007 (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.