February 2

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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7, where no one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created by accident; supposed to be a testcases subpage. — Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:27, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems a navbox without any links and is unused. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Author appears to be largely inactive, and I can't see "mathematical functions" being a suitable candidate for a template list - I expect there are enough of them to overfill a category and require subcats, never mind a template. Happymelon 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I too would shudder to think what a comprehensive template of this nature would look like. Huntster (t@c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Birds Duology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No reason to have a navbox for a "series" with only 2 movies. — Hnsampat (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G1 - patent nonsense. Happymelon 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth date and age 1973 - 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Contains no functionality whatsoever (no code) and is unused anywhere. Listing here because it doesn't quite fit any speedy criterion.. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:34, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Train Rollingstock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Replaced by Template:Infobox Train. Is unused. Wongm (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as an uncontroversial redirect cleanup (WP:CSD#G6). Happymelon 23:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox amtrak car (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Replaced by Template:Infobox Train. Is unused. Wongm (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox train car (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Replaced by Template:Infobox Train. Is unused. Wongm (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMSLP2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the International Music Score Library Project website was forced to shut down. though this template has been awkwardly modified to identify works the 'were' included in the database, it currently serves no rational purpose. emerson7 06:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (possibly blanked). The legal status of the project appears to be still under debate - its database has not been deleted AFAIK. If it relaunches in the near future with the same database, we'll have done a large amount of needless work clearing these links, followed by even more unnecessary work restoring them. Yes this template is currently of no utility, but it has clear potential if the site is restored (which seems entirely possible in my limited knowledge of the situation), and certainly does no harm. If the site does go down permanently, of course, then delete as genuinely useless. Happymelon 23:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will be a lot of work to re-add all templates when the site comes up again, which it eventually will. --Funper (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but make note that it should be re-evaluated after a time. Huntster (t@c) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site will be back in the near future. Deleting and re-adding all the links to the scores is hence useless work.--Dr. Friendly (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was to userfy. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Divisive template, biased opinion of editors who should know better than trash the project. Very close to being a candidate for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:CSD#Templates and Wikipedia:Userbox migration≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete, leaving the option of creating a redirect open to editorial judgement. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Japanese EMU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A Japanese EMU is no different to one from any other country. Template:Infobox EMU already deals with the subject in question. Wongm (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City of Moldova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Standardized and upgraded to Infobox Settlement. —MJCdetroit (yak) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. This is a recreation of {{convert}}. It was created to avoid typing "|abbr=on". —MJCdetroit (yak) 02:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was discussed at Template_talk:Convert#Template_with_defaults_for_infoboxes_.5BWas:_Should_we_keep_this_parallel_template.3F.5D
The template is made for infoboxes and has three additional parameters. A bot gone wild just removed it from a series of infoboxes, missing two out of three parameters, really regrettable. -- User:Docu
comment It was discussed and two other editors agreed that this off-shoot was unnecessary, redundant, and an odd way to save keystokes. If you want to save keystrokes just use copy & paste. Also, the other parameter, |lk=on (i.e. wikilinking) everytime is inappropriate for an infobox. The MOSNUM suggests that you only link the first time. In fact, some editors, Lightmouse in particular, actually de-link all common units such as miles and kilometers. —MJCdetroit (yak) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that they just commented on your incomplete summary before I had time to respond. -- User:Docu
Those editors are very active on that talk page—they almost certainly seen your comments that have been there for almost two weeks. —MJCdetroit (yak) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As far as I can tell this template does nothing that {{Convert}} doesn't already do. There is no point in replication. Huntster (t@c) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having two templates which do the same thing with different defaults makes it harder to get writers to use each correctly because the alternatives are less discoverable. If this is kept is should be renamed to have a more meaningful name and it should be documented with a reference to the alternative {{Convert}} and with advice on recommended usage. -- PatLeahy (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with MJCdetroit. Lightmouse (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unnecessary encapsulation which encourages violations of the MOS and causes needless confusion for editors. Happymelon 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Converta does two things.
    1. It save a few keystrokes.
    2. It makes WP that little bit more unfathomable for editors.
If you want to use convert in an infobox, you'd be better-off hardwiring it into the infobox itself. Jɪmp 06:10, 4 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is not helpful to the editors of the article. It is, essentially, a slap in the face to say "Hey, the deep, serious issues you were arguing about are now considered LAME" even with the warnings that the page is supposed to be humorous. Many of the issues are serious (such as the nationality of Copernicus and Tesla, or the naming of Danzing) and editors deserve a proper template, such as {{Controversial}} and {{Calm talk}}, instead of a humorous one. A humorous one may in fact encourage people to be more childish and less serious (perhaps, I think, in an effort to see more of their exploits added to their entry in LAME), which would result in a negative effect. I do not see any possible positive benefit. {{Controversial}} does LAME's job just fine without possibly encouraging childish behavior or offending certain editors.

See also July 2005 debate. — hbdragon88 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a a dispute doesn't count as "edit war" don't tag it as such, if an edit war is not "lame" don't tag it as such. What is the point of worry here? Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:40, 10 February 2008 (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.