Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 June 3)
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3

edit

Template:2007 Chicago Cubs Starting Rotation

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 per WP:SNOW and per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30#Template:1989 Chicago Cubs. The issues here are exactly the same, only this template is 10 times sillier than the other one. IronGargoyle 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 Chicago Cubs Starting Rotation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is superfluous as in baseball, starting rotations change all the time and the starting rotation is listed on the team roster template. Discussion at [[1]]. DandyDan2007 21:33, 3 June 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:Survtwice2

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 voted off the island. IronGargoyle 00:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Survtwice2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is unneeded because Template:Survtwice lists people who played twice and were only voted out once. That means all others that played twice were voted out twice (except for one, which is listed at Template:Survnovote). --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anything inconsistent about calling for a critical look and voting to keep. My vote rarely reflects my stance on the discussion itself, which I tend to value regardless of my position. --Maxamegalon2000 01:08, 5 June 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:Infobox Cornish place with map

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. IronGargoyle 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Cornish place with map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused template, obsoleted by Template:infobox UK place. — Pit-yacker 19:10, 3 June 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:administrator

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 keep. Issues with a copyrighted image on a template are resolved by changing the image, not by deleting the template. >Radiant< 14:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is designed for use on userpages, but contains a fair-use image (a derivative of the Wikipedia logo) and so can't actually be used in such a context without violating WP:FUC (although the fair-use is arguably legally correct and the Foundation is unlikely to sue itself over this, it's against the fair-use and Wikimedia policies). {{Administrator2}} exists as an alternative without this problem (there's a problem with no link to the image description page for a GFDL image, but this can be sorted out by normal editing), so redirecting would make sense. There are likely other templates with the same problem. --ais523 16:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the logo also copyrighted under GFDL? Natalie 16:44, 3 June 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:Philippine quasi-legislatures

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. IronGargoyle 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine quasi-legislatures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's only 1 item in the template, there's no need to have a template for it.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You nominated this template last month, and it was kept despite the lack of knowledge of this subject. Afterwards, the creator User:Rizalninoynapoleon removed all of the links except one. If there really is only one "quasi"-legislature with an article, then delete. –Pomte 06:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any vote process here will be flawed unless somebody proved that editors interested in Philippine legislature are properly notified. This TFD doesn't just involve the technical aspect (e.g. one-use, redundancy, replaceability, etc), it also involves domain knowledge. Just before 2007-05-05, this template included several links. But for an unknown reason, all but one were removed. If we are not experts of Philippine legislature, how can we judge whether or not the removed links should or should not be there. I won't vote until somebody proved that editors interested in Philippine legislature are properly notified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't even think there were quasi-legislatures in Philippine Congress (except for this Batasang Bayan thing---which I first heard on WP), and this template's creator kept on insisting that the other items on the original template's list (i.e. the commissions that drafted various versions of the Philippine Constitution. However, by his definition, quasi-legislatures exists to help draft legislation (i.e. acts, decrees, republic acts)---it was clear, though, that there was some confusion as the concept of a quasi-legislature never existed at any point in Philippine history except for this period when only one man was writing the laws and was being ratified by a rubber-stamp Congress (or sometimes not at all). (In fact, all the sources mentioned at the Batasang Bayan article makes this purpose clear.) In contrast, the constitutional commissions were convened to draft a constitution that was ratified by voters (through a referendum), not by their elected legislators. A constitution and all other laws ratified under it differ in character, much as the original Fathers of the American Constitution didn't have to worry about helping their successor-legislators/lawmakers help draft laws (besides, they're already dead by now). I understand that the other Filipino editors on Wikipedia have been debating this with this template's creator, and I think that because he could not back up his own edits, he removed the links on the template himself. (This isn't the first time he recanted, especially if his own "sources" repudiated him, as with this one incident where he claims receiving an email from a Philippine senator). Regarding notifying this template's creator, that would be a courtesy, of course, but we who have encountered his edits know for sure that even if we notify him of this TfD, he will ignore it and will surely abandon his pet projects. Thanks, but no thanks; let the others inform him, but it won't be me. --- Tito Pao 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one item in the template...no need for a template in this case. Jmlk17 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the sole reason that there is only one item. --Howard the Duck 16:12, 5 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_3&oldid=1141877078"