Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 17 April 2006

April 16, 2006

Template:City Terminal Zone link

Template:City Terminal Zone link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Content is just the link City Terminal Zone. No inclusions on What Links Here. The content is shorter than the template name, so I doubt it's being actively subst'd. SeventyThree 23:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Worse than useless. John Reid 17:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete disambiguation templates

• Template:Otherusespar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Otheruses0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Otheruses5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Otheruses6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Otheruses7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Otheruses8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These are apparently no longer needed, and there is an excessive proliferation of similar-looking and poorly-documented disambiguation templates in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. -- Beland 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete -- all retired long ago --William Allen Simpson 06:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Subnational entity

Template:Subnational entity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete -- This bloated template keeps changing its displayed name, currently "Country subdivisions", as each previous incarnation is disputed. It serves no purpose, its contents are already in the related categories, more complete contents already are listified at List of terms for subnational entities, List of subnational entities, and Matrix of subnational entities. It is almost the entire page at Division (subnational entity), and half the page at many other locations. --William Allen Simpson 17:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• comment - where have been any disputs on the incarnations? Are you spreading false claims to easier go through? Depending on your ability to produce encyclopedic content on this subject, you can help expand Division (subnational entity). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - the claim that the content can be found more complete in lists is nonsense. This is true for every navigational template: the content is allways to be found in lists or articles. And as Willy said, it's more complete in other places, but this is so because it is a navigational template and only contains the english terms. See also Template:Subdivision term spanish, Template:Arab subdivision - the latter already survived a TfD. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful navigational template. — Instantnood 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and whack with an axe™. Consider opening an RfC if another reincarnation appears. John Reid 17:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You indirectly claimed there has been at least one reincarnation, please consider to remove your claim or to provide evidence of re-incarnation (s). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tournament bracket templates

• Template:Bracket bottomcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Bracket bottomleftcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Bracket bottomleftrightcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Bracket bottomrightcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Bracket gapcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Bracket nobottomleftrightcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates are part of an earlier cumbersome attempt to generate a tournament bracket. They have been replaced by Template:16TeamBracket, Template:Round16, and some of the other better designed templates listed on Category:Sports templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as deprecated. —Doug Bell 11:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John Reid 17:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sigma Chi infobox

Template:Sigma Chi infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is only used or possibly useful in Sigma Chi, where it has been replaced by the standardized Template:Infobox fraternity Lanoitarus .:. 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unused --William Allen Simpson 17:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Firstly, why is there a need for a standardized information box for Fraternities? Secondly, there are things that are important to different fraternities that should be included in the info box. Founders, founding site, etc. I'm voting to keep simply because each fraternity is vastly different and they can't all be combined into one infobox. 4.225.19.135 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There have been other fraternity infoboxes such as this which have been deleted. Yes, every fraternity is different, but then again every fraternity has "standard" info like "founders, founding sites, etc.". Info like this is not unique and I fail to see why each fraternity should clutter wiki with their own infoboxes. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pagrashtak 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Chairman S. 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why don't we look to update the mundane and boring standard fraternity box to include...oh i don't know, things that are actually relevant. Such as names of founders, a box or two for grand officers, principal governing bodies, etc. The Sigma Chi box is pretty informative, the "Standard Infobox" is an uniformative and ugly mess. Why don't we put some real work and thought into it, rather than just deleting one of the better info boxes because "it might clutter wiki with infoboxes." Batman2005 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So if it the standard infobox is "uninformative and ugly mess" then why is used in dozens of fraternity articles without a complaint? --† Ðy§ep§ion † 06:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom . Batman, if you want to make a better standard box, go ahead. JoshuaZ 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with standard box. John Reid 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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 Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Joke new messages

Template:Joke new messages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This has no encyclopedic value and is not used on any pages. A template isn't necessary for a new messages spoof. Sango123 (e) 01:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The user box templates have no encyclopedic value either, and most of them are still templates that haven't been deleted. It is not like the name "Template:Joke new messages" is using up any space for a real template. Just because it isn't the size of a userbox, doesn't mean you can't consider it a userbox. If you delete this template, you might as well delete all of the userboxes under the category funny. Also, people want to put this template on their user page. If we delete it, where are they gonna put it if users need it. --GeorgeMoney
• Delete and send anyone trying to use it to bed without a cookie. The hand-made fake new message bars are annoying enough; let's not encourage people by providing templates for them. Kirill Lokshin 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Let's make a compromise. As Sango123 said, you don't need a template to spoof the 'You have new messages' prompt. Check other user's pages (mine included) to see how they do it and follow suit :)

  You'll find it's done like this: <div class="usermessage plainlinks"><div class="plainlinks">You have '''<font color=002BB8>]</font> (<font color=002BB8>]</font>).'''</div></div> — nathanrdotcom 02:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  If we are gonna do what nathanrdotcom says, then lets at least make a category of people with the message, so people can find the code and copy it into their page. It was hard enough for me to find one of those users to copy the code and make the template. --GeorgeMoney

• Delete per nom and also and at the risk of WP:BEANS, this template has potential for abuse. JoshuaZ 05:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this definitely isn't something to be encouraged by making a template for it. —Doug Bell 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:BEANS _→AzaToth 17:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:BEANS --William Allen Simpson 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, people are free to act like fools but I see no reason to encourage it. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I, the creator, say to delete it. --GeorgeMoney 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if you, the creator say to delete it, go there and slap a {{db|reason}} on it and it'll be deleted. — nathanrdotcom 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

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 page.