Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21

Template:Worldwide Hazardous Material Handling

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. – Malcolm (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used. --Carnildo 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, far too large to be helpful in an article, unused. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:20, 22 September 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:ARC stadia

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. – Malcolm (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by {{ARC Grounds}}, therefore redundant. – Bob 20:25, 21 September 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:South Africa Rugby

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. – Malcolm (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by {{Rugby union in South Africa}}, therefore redundant. – Bob 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:56, 22 September 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:Currie Cup

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. – Malcolm (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by {{Rugby union in South Africa}}, therefore redundant. – Bob 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:56, 22 September 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:Eng rugby prem

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. – Malcolm (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by {{Rugby union in England}}, therefore redundant. – Bob 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:56, 22 September 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:French Rugby links

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. – Malcolm (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by {{Rugby union in France}}, therefore redundant. – Bob 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:56, 22 September 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:Italian Rugby links

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. – Malcolm (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by {{Rugby union in Italy}}, therefore redundant. – Bob 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:56, 22 September 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:Month 28 Fr etc

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. – Malcolm (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Month 31 We (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - two months ago I suggested to delete Template:MonthR 28 Fr and 27 other templates (note the additional R in the name). They had been replaced by Template:Month3. So I was rather suprised to discover these. AFAI can see they do exactly the same, and they aren't used. HandigeHarry 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:57, 22 September 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:Month

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 05:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:57, 22 September 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:SANZAR links

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 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superceded by {{Tri Nations}} and {{Super Rugby}}, therefore redundant. – Bob 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:58, 22 September 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:Russian launch vehicles

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 no consensus. IronGargoyle 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Expendable launch systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). – GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The two templates aren't really redundant, which would imply that the {{Expendable launch systems}} template is a complete substitute for the {{Russian launch vehicles}} template. Overlooking the obvious and easy-to-fix fact that {{Russian launch vehicles}} contains vehicles that are not included in {{Expendable launch systems}}, the problem is that {{Expendable launch systems}} is a mishmash of a whole bunch of rocket names that casual users like me aren't familiar with. Frankly, if I was only interested in reading about Russian/Soviet rockets (an extremely reasonable possibility), using {{Expendable launch systems}} as a navbox would be frustrating to me, since I'd have to wade through American, Chinese, etc. rockets to get what I want. However, I mentioned "for now" because if {{Expendable launch systems}} were to be further segregated into ELV's by nationality (such as breaking the list into columns by nationality, I'd view the {{Russian launch vehicles}} template as truly redundant and would support deletion. Neil916 (Talk) 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 20:19, 21 September 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:Cite refs

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, the only difference between this template and the common {{Fact}} is that it's hideous and unprofessional. A message like this would best be inserted as a hidden comment. . Chris B • talk 19:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Fact}}} --Farix (Talk) 20:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it's hideous. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needless duplication of {{who}} and {{fact}} or {{cn}}--Cailil ^talk 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leave a redirect to {{fact}} (would be useful). Neil ム 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused. --Sigma 7 11:59, 24 September 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:Disputed template

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. Unused and extremely confusing. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for this template. Templates don't exist as guidelines or policy, and even if they did, {{disputedtag}} works just as well. – The Evil Spartan 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this template, but I could see a couple of uses for it if it survives this TfD. There are a few templates which masquerade as policy. If we really needed the disc space, the disputed policy tag would be fine, but where is the harm in having a more precise tag? However, I don't feel strongly either way. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and somewhat confusing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 22 September 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:Metra Line Index

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 05:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was essentially duplicating the navbox {{Metra Lines}}. I have now merged the two of them so there is no need for them both. – Jeremy (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:58, 22 September 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.