Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 4

< August 3	August 5 >

August 4

Template:Townships in Wayne County, Ohio

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 keep --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates consist of links to nonexistent articles. - EurekaLott 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete these - those townships, as with all municipalities, should get articles. --SPUI (T - C) 11:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SPUI's argument. Neil916 15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both of the above templates. If the redlinks are the issue, then take the initiative & at least make them into stubs. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 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:Sectstab

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "template" consists of an edit about Japanese characters, apparently a mistaken edit (possibly of {{sectstub}}). Have asked the original editor to tag it speedy if possible, but I'll bring it here in case it isn't. Not linked/used anywhere, near as I can tell. -- nae'blis 18:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not useful enough to warrant being a template.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draicone (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I don't see the point. It's just one sentence. Neil916 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 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:Inlinequote

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused quotation template. Superseded by many other templates. CG 16:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. And it looks odd. Iola k ana|^T 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to {{"}}. Template should probably be used with subst, which would explain why there aren't any links. Neil916 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 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:LaTeX

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused cleanup tag. The message isn't entirely clear; MediaWiki math markup is more like TeX than LaTeX, and it wouldn't be clear to someone unfamiliar with Help:Math what this means. It also doesn't seem a likely choice for drive-by cleanup tagging. --ais523 17:23, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

Delete. I made the tag and even I never use it, as I haven't edited math articles in a long time. If there's a pressing need for it in the future I'll recreate it in userspace. Isopropyl 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author above. Neil916 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 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:Qt

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused quotation template. Superseded by many other templates. CG 16:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superseded templates are not needed.

Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 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:Pokémon glitches

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox for a series of articles that has almost completely been merged into one article; right now, it only links to two different articles, and shortly those should be merged as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Navbox which points to at most two articles. --ais523 10:58, 4 August 2006 (U T C)
Delete as per article merge -- second article has been merged/redirected to the first article as per an older WP:AFD verdict. --Stratadrake 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the two articles are Pokémon glitches and Glitch City. The latter will eventually be merged into the former, but it's probably not happening unless I do it, and I haven't gotten around to it yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination DannyM 20:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like this at all. The pokemon things are all right the way there are. Please change them all back now. --Philip1992 17:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Philip1992[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original creator of this template. Since almost everything has been merged up into less than three links, it would be much better to use a "see also" instead of a template. Hbdragon88 08:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) _{Edited eelete to delete for ease of headcounting & clarification. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete Per nom. If Hbdragon88 thinks it should go, that's persuasive. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.--Veemonkamiya 00:55, 11 August 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:Wikipediatoc-main

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 keep --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused remnant of something? --Quiddity 05:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This used to be a major part of the Main Page, back even before the Template namespace was invented (it was MediaWiki:Wikipediatoc-main back then). Although no longer useful, it should be kept for historical reasons. No opposition to a rename or move to a different namespace (possibly we need a Wikipedia: page to preserve 'things that would have been deleted were it not for their historical value', just like we have BJAODN for 'things that would have been deleted if they weren't so funny'). --ais523 11:01, 4 August 2006 (U T C)
I'm not sure how this is historically valuable, as it only has a 3 item history, and is only made up of two transcluded templates? (One of which, {{Wikipediacats}}, is also unused, but contains actual content, and so would be usefully kept&tagged-historical.) Thanks for any further insight you can provide on this :). --Quiddity 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems only to have been a slight reformatting of the {{Wikipediacats}} template, formatted by transclusion. On the other hand, I don't think deletion is necessary. It would be interesting to see if there are enough defunct templates out there to make an entire historical Main Page. --ais523 11:25, 8 August 2006 (U T C)
We already have historical Main Pages available: Main Page alternative (Classic 2006) and Main Page alternative (Classic 2004). And the Main Page history can show everything else. I still don't quite understand why you think this is useful to keep? Thanks. --Quiddity·(talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As historical. Should be on the (fictitious) Wikipedia Register of Historic Pages. --Ssbohio 03:09, 10 August 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.