Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3, 2006[edit]

Template:Oldtfd2[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. — Jul. 6, '06 [18:31] <freak|talk>

Delete -- Not documented or used, incompatible with current daily page scheme. Inexplicably, all done the same day by the same IP user. --William Allen Simpson 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omniplex 22:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. the wub "?!" 11:32, 4 July 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.

Template:Oldtfd1[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. — Jul. 6, '06 [18:33] <freak|talk>

Delete -- Not documented or used, incompatible with current daily page scheme. Inexplicably, all done the same day by the same IP user. --William Allen Simpson 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omniplex 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. the wub "?!" 11:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yank sox 13:59, 4 July 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.

Template:Oldcfd1[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. — Jul. 6, '06 [18:33] <freak|talk>

Delete -- Not documented or used, incompatible with current daily page scheme. Inexplicably, all done the same day by the same IP user. Also, see yesterday's related nominations. --William Allen Simpson 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omniplex 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. the wub "?!" 11:32, 4 July 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.

Template:Megamanzx[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, no links, fancruft --William Allen Simpson 02:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Template:Megamanzx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
This navbox isn't actually useful for navigation. There are only two articles on Wikipedia about Mega Man ZX: List of Mega Man ZX characters and Mega Man ZX. (Note that Mega Man ZX hasn't even been released yet!) This navbox links to those two, then a grab-bag of unrelated (Mechaniloid, Reploid, Maverick) and semi-related (the rest of the Mega Man series) articles. I don't feel it's a particularly useful template, and won't be for quite a while. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. o/s/p 11:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it originally had more articles, but they were condensed for some reason.

Speedy Keep - According to various gaming sites and recent information, it appears this is false. The product is out in stores and more information becomes avalible for expansion. As for the nominator's reasoning of time, he hasn't looked at the edits on the page history, I presume. I still have no idea what this was all about, but its a given the template will have expandable material. I'll leave that up to the editors, however. -Randall Brackett 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears what is false? The game wasn't released when this nomination was written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This case was a very clear cut abuse of TFD and should never have even reached review. The matter in question should have been researched upon for release data and information then subsequently verified. What, do you believe the game was coming out five years later..? -Randall Brackett 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...um. I think the template should be deleted because it links to two articles, then a bunch of articles that don't mention ZX at all. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it doesn't have anything to do with why I want this template deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 14 July 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.

Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers[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 no consensus to delete --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Although not really a template, but it is superseded by List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (graphical) which is clearer and more readable. CG 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant--Poetlister 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are not the same thing, the graphical list cannot be included in articles in the same way the timeline can. Afonso Silva 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - unreadable output. -- Omniplex 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this seems perfectly readable to me. the wub "?!" 11:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly because I don't see much point in deleting it. —Nightstallion (?) 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the point in having two timelines of the same subject? CG 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that one is a regular vertical timeline, the other is a massive picture that, despite looking good and having advantages, is not wasy to include in articles. Afonso Silva 22:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The two timelines aren't included in any article, they are both linked from List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom as separate pages. CG 13:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this one is easier to read. Sophy's Duckling 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I definitely don't want to see this in any article. The number of boxes of all kinds in articles is getting out of hand. Chicheley 03:45, 7 July 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.

Template:True[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. — Jul. 7, '06 [13:35] <freak|talk>

No idea why this template was created. As far as I can tell, neither necessary nor helpful. —smably 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it discourages fact-checking. Delete. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lol, joke template. CG 13:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Poetlister 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a total joke. Afonso Silva 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omniplex 22:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet. the wub "?!" 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "Do not remove this statement. It is entirely true. That does not need to be edited because it is proven."? Anyway, it is awful for obvious reasons, so delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Left me laughing for a good 30 seconds. Grand master ka 07:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My reaction to this is, "wtf". Grammatically incorrect, useless, and way too many ways it can be abused. Sophy's Duckling 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN Seems to encourage addition of OR/POV. Amusing though. --ais523 09:49, 7 July 2006 (U T C)

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.