June 13, 2006

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. IceKarma 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deprecated in favour of Template:Infobox Education in Canada. Usgnus 20:01, 13 June 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.
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. IceKarma 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beograduni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template links to articles that mostly don't exist and really don't deserve their own articles. Ydam 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those articles are likely to end up getting merged in to the main parent article though, are articles on individual university faculties notable enough that we should be encouraging their creation with templates like these Ydam 15:58, 14 June 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.
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. IceKarma 07:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Academic Departments, University of Warwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Just a collection of external links, with an non fair use image. Delete Ian3055 13:53, 13 June 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.
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. IceKarma 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template. Replaced by Template:Infobox musical artist 2. CG 08:26, 13 June 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.
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 -- Drini 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP:meat-puppet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Seems useless, just links to meat-puppet, nothing more. Rory096 06:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. its not useless, I use it very often. Just look at the pages linking ti it! I made it because I was tyred of writting [[Sock_puppet_(internet)#Meat_puppet|meat-puppet]], {{WP:meat-puppet}}, which I use very oftern, is much easier to write and to remember. I recently had much problems with meat-puppets.

Meat-puppetry is very serious problem here and it's neglected for ne reason. People have problem explaining what it is since it's rarelly discussed. This way, Im trying to make it more accessible.

So, it is very usefull for me, and it will be udes even more when we start writtinf WP:RFC for those meat-puppets we have problems with.

Please, leave it. --Ante Perkovic 07:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY??? How can be used and usseless in the same tame? What is your problem? Does this template hurts someone??? Does it break any rules??? I need it and I use it! Besided, it is used on many pages and by removing it, those pages would be full of red link to this template!
I have enough trouble explaining people recent problems with meat-puppets and now you want to make it even hareder for me? Why?
Just, leave it alone, for wiki's sake! --Ante Perkovic 08:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what a hell, just phuc**ng delete it. I give up! You, birocrats....
BTW, I expect that the one who actually deletes it will also change all the pages that include this template.--Ante Perkovic 17:21, 14 June 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.
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. IceKarma 07:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TBA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pretty useless, and for its purpose far too verbose. No real need for this template, and not even being used.  Alfakim --  talk  14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of when is it not being used? I applied it in several places when I saw the "TBA" lack of conformity in different articles.

Added Comment - it is being used on the Houston Dynamo page. Kashami 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request please, if you need to write only a single line of text, do it so. -- Drini 23:03, 19 June 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.
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 -- Drini 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template contains a lot of false information and (nationalistic) POV. Actually, this entire template is POV, like creating a template called "Germanic" and then counting all kinds of histrical kingdoms in it. This template is claiming dynasties and peoples as "Turkic" of whom we almost know nothing about, for example the Huns (a heterogenious group of all kinds of backgrounds, including Turkic, but certainly not predominantly Turkic), Avars (a totally unknown, probably Mongol tribal confederation), Hephthalites (a probably Indo-European, most-likely Iranian nomadic confederation), Khwarizmshahs (a dynasty of unknown origin), Mughals (a Persian-speaking dynasty of Mongol origin in India), etc etc etc. So, no matter how you look at it, it's filled with wrong information and POV, most of all because it propagates some kind of an "ethnic identity" that has not existed in those dynasties. Tajik 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I agree the Kingdom of Kurdistan article is problematic, to say the least, but the existence of one bad article doesn't justify keeping another.--WilliamThweatt 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wasn't referring to it as a justification. I can propose a gentleman's agreement in the context: You resolve that article (because I certainly do not want to go into it for nothing in the world, although I certainly do think that there is start-up material in there for a Sheikh Said Rebellion article that I can contribute once formed), AND, I can put this template into a reasonable format. It's a proposal. Cretanforever
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.