Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

November 3

Template:Opcina

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 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detete. Several articles using it were standardized to one Infobox. — Darwinek 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detete per nom. —MJCdetroit 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - deprecated & superceded - needs to be removed from croatia project lists. SkierRMH 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unused and deprecated. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, has been standardized elsewhere. Yamaguchi先生 19:20, 6 November 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:Opcina1

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 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detete. Several articles using it were standardized to one Infobox. — Darwinek 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detete per nom. —MJCdetroit 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - deprecated & superceded - needs to be removed from croatia project lists. SkierRMH 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unused and deprecated. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, deprecated, superceded. Doczilla 05:17, 7 November 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:Opcina2

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 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detete. Several articles using it were standardized to one Infobox. — Darwinek 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detete per nom. —MJCdetroit 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - deprecated & superceded - needs to be removed from croatia project lists. SkierRMH 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unused and deprecated. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, deprecated, superceded. Doczilla 05:17, 7 November 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:CSAttGen

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 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already transcluded in the much wider and broader {{CSCabinet}}. — Jmlk 1 7 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant (although not 100% deprecated as of yet). SkierRMH 14:39, 5 November 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:Beginbookneighbor

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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing Template:Bookneighbors and Template:Endbookneighbor. These templates are not needed. Every book should have an infobox, and if it is part of a series, has the "preceeded by" and "followed by" fields. There is no need for this template. i (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I find it more conveinent to just click the link in the bookneighbor template, then having to always scroll down to the bottom of the infobox, and it also (in my opinion) it looks nice.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 21:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning toward delete; it appears that this is redundant to the 'preceded' and 'followed' fields in the infobox. As it's used in articles, it also is redundant to the series templates at the bottom of the articles. Also, as it's placed in Lord Loss it could be confusing - what series? was my first question. It was like a shortcut to Template:Demonata at the top of the page.SkierRMH 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to links in the infobox, and probably in the majority of cases nav templates at the bottom. It is also not particularly clear that they are part of a series, or which series they are part of. They also place links before any other content and, along with the previous points, breaks Wikipedia:Accessibility. Infobox and navbox templates are sufficient, we don't need it three times! matt br 14:12, 11 November 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:La Liga seasons

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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently orphaned and also includes images with questionable copyright status. — PeeJay 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the template also seems to have been superceded by Template:Primera División de España. - PeeJay 17:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and possible copyright violation. Qwghlm 12:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and orphaned. Woodym555 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - vital and important information. If delete this template, also delete this Template:Premier League seasons. - Raymond Cruise 15:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the above comment? It has been superceded by a different template containing the same information. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant/orphaned. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, orphaned, possible copyvio. Doczilla 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - if I were writing an article and wanted to include this template, I would naturally believe that it was located at Template:La Liga seasons. So why not make it a redirect? ugen64 23:40, 7 November 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:(¡)

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's it's suppose to be for, but somehow it went from <noinclude>|</noinclude> to something about Pokemon. Looking at the history, it looks like vandalism, but wasn't being used anyway. Rocket000 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as unused, maybe a try at a "see also" (?). Creation edit summary shows as a recreation of... but unable to find the original. (See also Template:¿) SkierRMH 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused template. Doczilla 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems someone was sandboxing and got bored or something. Unused and unnecessary. --linca linca 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a test or vandalism. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 00:57, 9 November 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.