Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

June 25, 2006

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 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pi

Verified, but delete anyway I've checked the value given against sources outside Wikipedia; the last digit given is 8 if truncated or 9 if rounded (the rounded version is used; possibly if kept the number of decimal places should be changed so that the first ungiven digit is 4 or less), but otherwise it's correct. Still, I don't think this has a place on Wikipedia; the number of digits in the Pi article should easily be sufficient. --ais523 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - If there were some reason that we needed to compute values using pi this would seem like a reasonable thing to have... but I can't think of any such uses (and there aren't any currently), so I don't think it is needed. If it ever is it could always be recreated. --CBD 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory... please check m:Help:Calculation#Accuracy for errors, I'm not sure how many decimal digits actually do have any impact on calculations. More than one for the 3 plus 15 digits after the decimal point would surprise me. -- Omniplex 11:44, 27 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 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Physics intro

Template:Physics intro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. This was an attempt by a new user to replace the introduction to physics with a box. Pretty, but not in accord with the Manual of Style. Srleffler 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Srleffler: You are correct Sreleffer. I am not a new user. But my attempt to edit was first. But soon after my attempt, some of the experienced users reverted the box. I was not aware of the wikistyle. If you think, there is no harm with this box and it appears pretty, try to keep it as I did. Otherwise delete it. This box was created only for this article. It it seems not suitable for this article, delete it.. There is no need of further discussion. Please put your comments in my talk page Insvik 18:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mi r a 03:23, 26 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 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BoF2 char Infobox

Template:BoF2 char Infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Used in one article only, replaced by more general template, chock full of unencyclopedic game-guide information. This can safely be deleted without substing because of the lack of encyclopedic information, if it is orphaned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to work on BoF-related articles (mainly BoF1,3 and 4 chars.), so could be possible if I use the box and turn it into a BoF-general infobox, which you later can standarize. (Johnny Master 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'd start with {{Metal Gear character}} and work up to make a {{General CVG character}} subbox, instead of trying to retool this fairly bare-bones template, if it were up to me. I just didn't see any info worth saving from this infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm thinking on removing the BoF2-only info (Abilities and Shaman) and expand it with some more in tone information for an infobox (like height, weight, birthdate/place and the like). Any problem if I go ahead and improve the changes? (Johnny Master 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

How is the age, height, or weight of a fictional character encyclopedic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that. Just that's the sort of things which ends in others infobox (Soul Series and Tekken as example). Its simple the removal of game-guide based stats (field abilities and shaman transformations) for trivial things, which appears in other infoboxes. There's any problem with it? Johnny Master 05:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we need a template to put height and weight into Breath of Fire character articles, though, frankly. I don't see why we need that in those articles at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're mostly trivialties, but then why not? Its just trivial things, nothing too deep or anything. If its in other cases, why not here? Its really such a big matter some small trivia facts that can go there instead of grossing a "Trivia" section? I'm not asking for individual BoF pages (thought really nice, I know it wouldn't go here) only to have some decent infobox like that of other game series. Is asking too much? Johnny Master 05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been trying to remove the lame trivia (height, weight, favorite food, silly stuff like that) from all of the infoboxes whenever I can. Why not remove encyclopedic trivia from all of them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah forget it. This is getting to nowhere. Do what you want, delete this, the list of BoF2 chars or the entire infoboxes for what I care. Thanks for wasting your time with my stupid suggestions, sorry for bothering you. 'bye. Johnny Master 06:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems of little use.--Brownlee 11:58, 6 July 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, undocumented shortcuts, all subst --William Allen Simpson 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rb, Template:Gb

Delete - Apparently, it is not used anywhere and it seems to have a reduced usefulness. The same for the green version. Afonso Silva 12:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wanted to propose to keep it for highlighting positive and negative points in unnumbered lists. --Wikinaut 10:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've seen green and red bullets and arrows on many pages over the years. This may be currently used by editors who subst it, or it may be used in historical versions of pages. --M @r ē ino 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — why bullets? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where is it used? What is it for? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful to editors who like to prettify--Brownlee 11:57, 6 July 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 21:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:editag, Template:editag2, Template:editag3, Template:editag4

Unused templates of a rejected proposal Wikipedia:Editor tags. CG 09:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since the proposal was rejected, the templates seem useless. Afonso Silva 12:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talkify These templates are part of a rejected proposal. It seems to be customary on Wikipedia to keep a record of rejected proposals (in part to stop people doing the same thing again), and so these templates should be kept somewhere. However, leaving them in template space seems useless and a waste, so they should just be moved to subpages of the proposal's talk page (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Editor tags/editag) for the record. --ais523 07:25, 28 June 2006 (U T C)
Subst and delete, per Ais523. Tito
Subst and delete--Brownlee 11:55, 6 July 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.

xd^(?!?) 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Crossmr 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guilty Gear

Template:Guilty Gear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with Category:Guilty Gear characters. There's no need to have a navbox that duplicates exactly the contents of a category, especially when that navbox is as intrusive as this one is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion on the Mario and Zelda templates. Categories are not as easy to use or as easily noticed by the average user, so navigational templates can and have been used. Hbdragon88 07:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those templates at least have some context, showing the order of series and the various sub-series. This does not; instead, it merely lists the contents of a category in alphabetical order. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, keep so we can rearrange it differently (i.e. from Guilty Gear, from Guilty Gear X, and so forth). --Yar Kramer 15:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is well established already that most readers do not use categories. I will admit that this template is rather ugly and could use a cleanup, but it is still far more useful than the category.--SomeStranger^(t) 12:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Navboxes are easier to navigate and easier to notice than categories. jgp (T|C) 03:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jgp. Danny Lilithborne 07:56, 30 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 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Survival Kids series

Delete per nom. And the WHITE ON LIGHT BLUE BURNS! Hbdragon88 07:03, 25 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.