August 15

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 Redirect to {{uw-username}}. Mike Peel 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UsernameConcern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{uw-username}}. The uw template is in coordination with The User Warnings Wikiproject.. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 18:09, 15 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.
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 deleted by DragonflySixtyseven. WODUP 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Little Lebowski Urban Achievers roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only use is in the article Little Lebowski Urban Achievers, which is up for deletion here. Ckatzchatspy 17:30, 15 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.
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Village DE NRW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Currently single use; and redundant to more generic settlement templates, with which that one use should be replaced. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:53, 15 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.
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Village pump (header bar) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely redundant to the navbox that appears within Template:Villagepumppages. Suggest deletion. --Quiddity 04:54, 15 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.
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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single series version of {{Infobox Television episode}}, unused, time to delete. Jay32183 03:22, 15 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.
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. Mike Peel 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following the adoption of infoboxes for air forces, there was a discussion about the use of infoboxes and sidebars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Air_Force#Infoboxes_and_sidebars) during which I changed my mind. As a result, I started the Template:Royal Air Force which sits at the bottom of approximately the same pages as this template. One thing I haven't changed my mind about is that making use of both infoboxes and sidebars is needles duplication. Worse still, this template and the Royal Air Force template give further duplication. Greenshed 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present the British Army and Royal Navy articles do not use infoboxes and so the problem has not arisen. However, the United States Air Force uses both an infobox and a sidebar (but note - no bottom box) and, I submit, that its layout could be improved. As regards aesthetics, we can always improve the look of the "Royal Air Force" template. Greenshed 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All British defence force articles use the side bar. Not only British; French Navy, United States Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force use this format. I suspect that all defence force articles use this method. It is Template:Royal Air Force that creates the duplication and so it is the one that should be deleted. --Bill Reid | Talk 08:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth looking at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although I appreciate that it's about articles, not templates. Greenshed 19:07, 15 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.