Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22, 2006[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 Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SKT[edit]

Template:SKT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It's an "all rights reserved" copyright template -- somewhat less free than {{Permission}}. Carnildo 22:11, 22 April 2006 (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 page.
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 Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viva colour templates[edit]

I don't see a reasonable purpose for these templates, and the creator hasn't provided any input as to how these templates could be used in an useful manner, other than being at Viva (bus rapid transit) (where I subst'ed them).—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 15:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These templates do little beyond encouraging people to make articles more complex than necessary. David Arthur 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these templates have no little purpose and should be removed. They aren't even being used anymore, delete.--Domthedude001 20:45, 22 April 2006 (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 page.
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 Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Planetbox classification[edit]

Template:Planetbox classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is no officially-accepted system of planetary classification (what the hell is a "habitable jovian" anyway?), there is very little observational data available, so trying to implement some kind of appearance/classification system when all we have in most cases is a lower limit on the mass and an orbital period is just speculation. We are an encyclopaedia, not a speculative site like Extrasolar Visions (I think this is where the creator got the idea). Using this template for any real extrasolar planets makes it seem like we know more than we actually do about them. I'd advise removing it from all the articles it's been put in, and deleting the template. Chaos syndrome 10:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Wikipedia must stay clear from this kind of speculation.--Jyril 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this template serves very little purpose and should be removed. --Domthedude001 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Template should first be removed from the pages where it is already in use (70 Virginis and 47 Ursae Majoris). — RJH 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No original research. the wub "?!" 23:01, 27 April 2006 (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 page.
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 Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Age[edit]

Oh so very "clever", but completely unnecessary. Why we would need to have an age calculation on an encyclopedia is beyond me. This function breaks the moment that someone tries to mirror our content. It is good enough just to note birthdates and leave it at that. Be on the lookout for much more cruft like this as a result of the poor decision to implement m:ParserFunctions. The documented reason for it's creation (Ever wonder how old your favorite child actor is?) is enough for me to want this one gone. -- Netoholic @ 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this could be useful on userpages (for example, if someone wants to have their age displayed and have it kept up to date without editing it directly). Ditto for infoboxes that handle people (an age field that's always up to date). Etc. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. This would even be a good idea to do with the age userbox. --Domthedude001 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete or userfy per nominator. There's no reason that this template should be used in the main namespace or the article talk page; information about the subject's birthdate should be in the article, not on the talk page. It can be userfied if this needs to be used on user pages. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Ed was just demonstrating it on the talk page, not saying information about age/birth should be moved to the talk page exclusively. And, respectfully, I don't see why we shouldn't use this in the main article namespace (especially in, say, infobox templates about people). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I've already userfied it). Wikipedia is not paper, and there's no reason to avoid dynamically-updated information, provided it's formatted properly and doesn't interfere with anything. I fully support any options which would facilitate "hiding" tables or columns which use templates like {{age}}. --Uncle Ed 02:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move back to template-space and use it in any namespace as appropriate. Dynamic information is very important if Wikipedia ever wants to push past conventional encyclopedias in terms of what content it offers. Netoholic wants to make things "easy" for editors by making things hard for readers. This is not right, we should make things easy for both readers and editors by using and documenting properly these templates, Ed has been doing great work in this area. Pcb21 Pete 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For all the reasons already stated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this template. It provides useful information, updates automatically rather than becoming 'out of date', and has no real drawbacks at all. --CBDunkerson 11:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all above reasons. What's interesting is that I just came up with this idea myself, opened Template:Age, got surprised that it already exists and absolutely shocked that someone wants it dead. I mean, if Tim Starling (or whoever else) created ParserFunctions, he was aware of the consequences. I'll even go bold and upgrade it so that one will be able to specify the date on which the age is measured (with default to {{CURRENT...}}). --Misza13 T C 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already well stated. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep—Although my instinct is that it seems unnecessary, maybe this will help prevent errors caused by figuring age by subtraction of years. Ardric47 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it stays up-to-date automatically is a bigger advantage. Let's us get on with more important things Pcb21 Pete 07:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 23:29, 26 April 2006 (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 page.
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 Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SaintCliff[edit]

Template:User SaintCliff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On top of not being useful to building an encyclopedia, this userbox uses a fairuse image within it. Which is a big no no in the userbox world. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Changed image to a public domain image of an envelope. if anyone can think of something better, feel free, but it removes the fairuse complaint. viva la userboxen! --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Not being useful to building an encyclopedia"???? You've got to be kidding...that describes any userbox that relates to a user's personal interests, which is many, many user boxes and one of the key reasons for user boxes; so we can tell about ourselves. Also agree with user preschooler. Rlevse 12:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per preschooler and rlevse. MiraLuka 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cliff is teh kewl!--Jguy 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem with it. --Misza13 T C 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per most of the above. Coffeeboy 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems harmless :/. Homestarmy 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What preschooler did should have beeen done in the first place - no need for TFD. TheJabberwʘck 04:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Harmless.--Zpb52 05:48, 29 April 2006 (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 page.
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 to Template:User UN Circeus 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User supports UN[edit]

Template:User supports UN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Redundant. there is already a un-supporting userbox using exact words and almost identical at Template:User UN. an admin should speedy-delete. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 06:29, 22 April 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_22&oldid=1146596022"