Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25

Template:AeralPhoto-MlitJp

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. matt br 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put cedit notices in articles, much less such convoluted and overbearing ones as this, hence Delete. Circeus 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Note to closing admin: please update {{GFDL-AeralPhoto-MlitJp}}, which instructs users to use the inline notice in articles.[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:Be-software-screenshot

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. matt br 09:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused old-style image license tag, replaced by {{Non-free software screenshot|Screenshots of BeOS software}}. Should be deleted just like {{Windows-software-screenshot}} and {{Mac-software-screenshot}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the logic used in the nomination below this one. Gracenotes^T § 03:00, 1 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:Linux-software-screenshot

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. Uses converted as below and the upload form has already been changed. matt br 10:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template much like {{Windows-software-screenshot}} and {{Mac-software-screenshot}}, both of which have been deleted. This template is for non-free Linux software screenshots, but is often misused for GPL ones which should be tagged with {{GPL}} instead. Take a look at Category:Screenshots of Linux software to see all the improperly tagged images. The presence on this template of Tux, a mascot of free software, does not help. I propose that this template be deleted and {{Non-free software screenshot|Screenshots of Linux software}} be used instead, just like the other non-free software screenshot templates. We will of course also have to modify the image upload page to add an option for GPL screenshots. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Remember the dot's got the right idea here. Consistency in template use is really important, and the Tux logo really isn't appropriate for screenshots of non-free Linux software. -/- Warren 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, this should not be used. - cohesion 23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use {{Non-free software screenshot|Screenshots of Linux software}}, per nom. G iggy\^Talk 06:35, 27 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:One Life to Live

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 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to Template:OLTL. — Otto4711 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This template is used exclusively as a navigation tool among the "storylines by era" articles, where using the full Template:OLTL (which includes current cast and crew) is inappropriate. TAnthony 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inappropraite about using the full template on the storyline articles. Otto4711 04:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it's weird to be reading One Life to Live storylines (1968-1979) and having a template with 28 current characters, of whom only four or so are mentioned in the article. TAnthony 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be frank, that's on you. There is no orgazinational reason for maintaining two separate templates to accomplish the same navigational purpose. Otto4711 04:39, 17 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, Mike Peel 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider dropping the ridiculous use of a full-width collapsible navbox. Template:OLTL could probably use a split in 3 anyway. Smaller, better focused templates are more efficient for navigational purposes. Circeus 01:01, 26 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:History of anatomy

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 pending possible expansion of redirects. Some cosmetic changes might not hurt either. IronGargoyle 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be useful... If more than 2 links were not redirects. — Circeus 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could userfy it, until those other articles are expanded? Right now it's pointless, but if those redirects become daughter-pages, it could be useful. --Haemo 00:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template has IMHO been poorly designed to begin with. I was going tore-design entirely before I noticed the redirects issue. Circeus 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am the bad designer of the template. For background, the titles referred to a series af articles that were created by User:Deb with a lot of 19th century text. In my view there was loads of useful historical info in these articles and I spent some effort in cleanup and created the template. However, it is not an area I know anything about and I don't have any resources to hand. Lots more work was needed. Sadly User:Robth felt that the work needed to cleanup was a barrier to progress (see Talk:History of anatomy in the 17th and 18th centuries#Redirection) and, after properly raising the question on the talk page, turned the articles into redirects, effectively "blanking" the content. My attentions have been elsewhere but I still believe the original stuff is worthy of rescue. Deleting this template will be another step in burying it. Cutler 20:20, 18 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, Mike Peel 18:34, 25 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:A1GP Driver

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. matt br 09:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use. Replaced by {{Infobox racing driver}}. . Adrian M. H. 15:37, 25 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:DTM driver

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. matt br 09:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use. Replaced by Template:Infobox racing driver. . Adrian M. H. 13:59, 25 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:Counter-Strike_series

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 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Day of Defeat and Team Fortress series templates, this is not needed, as it has been in essence merged with this template. 69.182.52.67 05:18, 25 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:Deletiondebatesfake

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 Template creator supports a move to their userspace; no further discussion needed.. Mike Peel 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in EFD subpages. I suggest moving it to R's userspace and deleting the cross-namespace redirects. –Animum 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D or move - I agree with Animum here. I think all of the "User:R/EFD-cruft" that isn't yet in userspace should be moved speeeeeeeedily. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace-Maybe with my knowledge this time. Half of the EFD templates were created in my userspace and I didn't even know. You know, Animum, you could've just asked me. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move to R's userspace. If R agrees that it's okay to move the template into the userspace, then its fine with me. TfD really isn't necessary here; a move (not a delete) seems to be in favor for the nominator. A bit of discussion with R would have sped up the process here, I think. Singu larity 05:59, 25 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.