Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3

Template:Southampton weatherbox

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. IronGargoyle 02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use and redundant to the standard {{Infobox Weather}}, for which replaced it. Talk page was empty— MJCdetroit 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - 52 Pickup 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's replacement is primarily in imperial. In the UK, metric is the norm for weather measurements. If the new box can be changed (I don't know if it can), or if there is already a UK-centric equivalent, I'd have no objection to deleting this though. Dan K 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Imperial or metric isn't a problem for infobox weather. You can swap the unit order from imperial to metric by entering yes in the metric_first parameter. This can be done even if the source units are imperial; as they were in this case. —MJCdetroit 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, brilliant. Cheers for that. In that case, I've no problem with this being deleted. Dan K 20:48, 7 August 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.

Korean city userboxes

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. --Core desat 08:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially useful I suppose, but both are unused and would require cleanup to be of any real value. Probably not worth the effort. PC78 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unused and unlikely to be used. Shalom ^Hello 17:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it is resurrected, then it should at least be used and clearly written. - 52 Pickup 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the Dickens is a "wide area hour" ?! 68.39.174.238 19:52, 7 August 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.

Korean translation userboxes

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 both. IronGargoyle 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userboxes; redundant to {{Translator kor-eng}} and various language userboxes. PC78 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 17:23, 3 August 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:User ♂/Man

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. --Core desat 08:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox; there are better, widely used alternatives for this at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life. PC78 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but I don't see the speedy criterion. Shalom ^Hello 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to many templates in Category:Gender user templates, also, ♂ can't be typed on a normal keyboard, furthermore, I fail to see why this is not simply called {{User man}} or {{User ♂}}, finally, it is bad grammar. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; redundant. Unschool 08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and cannot be easily typed up. - 52 Pickup 18:22, 6 August 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:Immoral Sexuality

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 speedy delete, per CSD T1. --Eyrian 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Utterly subjective. Inherently and irreparably POV. Eyrian 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Speedy if possible. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it, but "inherently POV" isn't a speedy criterion. --Eyrian 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as divisive and inflamatory under WP:CSD#T1, and so tagged. DES ^(talk) 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you know, it is. So done.--Eyrian 15:08, 3 August 2007 (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.

Template:Globalize/Netherlands

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. Singu larity 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and I don't see any potential use for this.. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are many such Globalize templates for various countries. The fact that it is not used at the moment doesn't say that it the template is useless, just that there are currently no problem articles that require it. - 52 Pickup 07:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per 52 Pickup. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you never know.Rex 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this could potentially be useful in articles related to, for example, the Dutch language, which do mainly cover Dutch in the Netherlands and not in Flanders/Suriname (I've seen a few of those), but then the "worldwide" needs to be changed. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For that, maybe a different template could be made if there was a demand for it. For example, there are such templates for various English-speaking countries and one for the English-speaking world. See {{Globalize}} for more info. - 52 Pickup 18:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per 52 Pickup. MJCdetroit 00:10, 4 August 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:Swear

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 speedy delete per WP:NDT. >Radiant< 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use in any articles, Wikipedia is not censored. See also Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously per nom. Shalom ^Hello 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, saying "don't look if you're under 13" is arbitrary. -128.12.68.117 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The text contained in the template is also poor English. - 52 Pickup 07:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong and prompt delete. Nom has it exactly right. Also, completely useless even if we wanted to enforce such a policy, as we have no way of knowing the age of editors, much less or readers. Make it clear to whoever created this that this is a very bad idea. DES ^(talk) 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not censored. Cheers, Lig hts 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined a speedy because it didn't seem to fit the criteria, but it still should go per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is blatantly contradictory to Wikipedia policies (WP:CENSOR and WP:NDA). Also, this seems to be written by a non-native speaker of English, although the user page of the creator says he lives in the US. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A substantial group of the population over here (including some natives) does not actually speak English, so that's not necessarily a contradiction. -Amarkov moo! 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and 52. Swears??? MJCdetroit 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Delete; no censorship (or bad grammar). Unschool 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AlexJ 22:56, 4 August 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.

Evaluation images set

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 userfy. IronGargoyle 01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A set of templates used only to insert icons in a single username. If a template is needed, it should be a subpage instead. Circeus 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. - 52 Pickup 07:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per nom. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:23, 4 August 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:Abbr

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information should be provided via good article writing, not intricate HTML.
Abbr does not work with Internet Explorer.
The <abbr> tag will be removed by MediaWiki anyway.

Circeus 00:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These templates uses <span class="abbr">, which is a workaround of <abbr>. Also, <abbr> is to provide a description of the abbreviation. For example, <span class="abbr" title="et cetera">etc.</span> eDenE 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Not quite sure what the purpose of these templates is. More effort appears to be required to use the templates than to simply write the wikilink. If abbr is going to be scrapped, then these templates should go. - 52 Pickup 07:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will facilitate replacement by bot, when the abbr element is enabled; as it surely should be. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you know what the prospects are for that? DGG (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while the discussion goes on, can anyone at least make it appear less ugly in articles? Currently it throws "‹The template Abbr is being considered for deletion.›" into the text flow. See example at D with stroke#Latin. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to. It's what we do when templates are nommde for deletion. This is no exception. Circeus 14:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, but is there a way to make it look nicer? I am not an expert in advanced wiki syntax. --Amir E. Aharoni 16:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)~~ OK, forget it. I see that it's inline and all that. Thanks for your attention. --Amir E. Aharoni 16:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good in infoboxes and the like; but not for in-line text. We shouldn't break pages for such adminstrivia. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. //Halibu tt 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PHG 12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me a useful, elegant way to quote source texts in their original, abbreviated form, without having to interpolate too many notes, which might sometimes be intrusive. To put it another way: it avoids having to make digressions of unwarrented size about minor details. --Iustinus 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with quoting whatsoever!Circeus 23:17, 6 August 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:Aartalk

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 userfy. IronGargoyle 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was intended for use with rejected Wikipedia:Approved article revisions. THis functiuon can now be, with the appropriate plugin, performed software-side, making the template totally unnecessary. — Circeus 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there will be a point when The Right Software Updates come along, but we have been waiting for a long time and this brings it now without the need of updates. It has fallen to disuse, however I still want it to be around. Userfy it into my user space. MessedRocker (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is such a software update: FlaggedRevs, and IIRC something similar (maybe a different extension), is already in use on nl:. Circeus 03:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though it may be an arbitrarily long amount of time until FlaggedRevs comes to town. Anyways, I am going to be userfying it if no one minds. MessedRocker (talk) 14:21, 3 August 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.