< June 1 June 3 >

June 2, 2006

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English Division One teams[edit]

Template:English Division One teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Out of date and no longer in use (there are now new division alignments and corresponding templates). - Pal 19:49, 2 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English Division Two teams[edit]

Template:English Division Two teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Out of date and no longer in use (there are now new division alignments and corresponding templates). - Pal 19:48, 2 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English Division Three teams[edit]

Template:English Division Three teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Out of date and no longer in use (there are now new division alignments and corresponding templates). - Pal 19:45, 2 June 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYCS Manhattan Bridge templates[edit]

The following templates serve very, very limited purposes: They list the NYC subway services that access the north/south tracks of the Manhattan Bridge from various locations (DeKalb Avenue station, the BMT Broadway Line local tracks, the BMT Brighton Line, and the BMT Fourth Avenue Line. They had previously been used in, at most, one article each, and I have subst-ed them in the respective articles; they are now all orphaned. These templates should never be used again, since I am reworking the template system at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates and removing these nine, seeing as how they have next to no purpose—and what little purpose they have can easily be handled without creating whole templates for perhaps one or two articles. — Larry V (talk) 15:28, 2 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox movie certificates[edit]

Template:Infobox movie certificates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Spent a good time editing this template tonight to improve it, then found that only one article linked to it.. (see here). I have since subst the template on the one article. It currently uses very confusing names for the ratings fields, and I'm not sure if there's a demand for a template like this. I'd rather have someone else start from scratch when the time comes than try to find this guy a home. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but no articles use it and (from what I can tell) no one knows about it. -- Ned Scott 16:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and this template also has am unused redirect (Template:Infobox Movie Certificates) that probably should be deleted even if this template is kept. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the template, I was hoping Ryanasaurus0077 would have provided a bit more insight than that. Oh well, it will probably be kept anyways. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 6 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Czech composers[edit]

Template:Czech composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete this template as unencyclopaedic. This template contains pictures of three Bohemian composers (Antonin Dvorak, Bedrich Smetana and Bohuslav Martinu and one Moravian composer (Leos Janacek), under the heading ‘The Great Four’. It has been placed in the articles of the four composers concerned without any explanation or justification in the text of the articles.

‘The Great Four’ is not used in English as a description of these composers. (Indeed many would query whether Martinu is on the same level as the other three). (see discussions here and here). The creator of the template User:Antidote has on request given only one source, on the Internet, for the use of this term. It is not used in any of the standard musical dictionaries or histories. Indeed it is clearly a ‘manufactured term’ which cannot have been used about these composers while they were alive (unlike, for example, ‘the Mighty Handful’ used of Mussorgsky and his circle) as Smetana was dead six years before Martinu was born. There is already a Category:Czech composers in which these composers are listed.

This template therefore seems to be a clear case of an attempt to use Wikipedia to foist encyclopaedic acceptance of a term generally unrecognised elsewhere. It contributes nothing to the articles where it has been placed, except to clutter them up (in each case) with pictures of three composers not dealt with in the article.

Several attempts have been made on the above basis by myself (and others) to remove this template from the articles where it has been placed, but it is always shortly afterwards replaced, (sometimes with a rude message to the remover), and always from an unlogged IP address. It is not for me to speculate, of course, as to whether these reinstatements are from a sock-puppet. Therefore I propose deletion as a straightforward solution. Smerus 06:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete per Smerus. It's also ridiculously large and ugly. Tuf-Kat 11:05, 2 June 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 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) --Pilot|guy 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User intercal[edit]

Template:User intercal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Speaks for itself: "This user hates you, and insists that you learn to program in Intercal", if that's not divisive and inflammatory I don't know what is. Also, the fact that the original creator's edit summary read "I'm doomed" would suggest that this was a bad faith template in the first place. Apologies, having read the justification, I retract this portion of the comment. (After deleting, a factual rewrite would not be opposed) tjstrf 06:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I read the article on Intercal, and I realize that it was intended as a joke, but I believe this is exactly the sort of template "divisive and inflammatory" was designed to cover: templates that are blatently and purposefully insulting to someone. (in this case, everyone who reads it) --tjstrf 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you are eager to immediately delete this template despite either my intent in its creation or whatever I say -- or whether anyone has claimed to be offended by this userbox. (Yourself excluded, of course.) The wording of the userbox strongly depends on an understanding of irony -- & I can't help but concluding that by delting this userbox, we are only succeeding in making Wikipedia safe for those people lacking the ability to understand irony.
One final note Tjstrf: you have accused me of bad faith above when I created this userbox. My comment was not meant to convey that; I wrote it, late at night, to acknowledge that by creating a userbox at that moment it appeared that I was taking a side in a divisive battle on Wikipedia. (I still remember Tony Sideway's zealous post to ENwiki-L that "Userboxes must die".) I have been very civil in this matter, & as long as this matter follows reasonable protocol & civility I have no objections to the outcome of this discussion. I would appreciate it if you removed that comment -- otherwise my disappointment in this whole matter can only deepen & discourage me further about Wikipedia. -- llywrch 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection noted, but it still meets the criteria for deletion. I understand irony perfectly well, and I also do not think that "Userboxes must die", and further find Tony Sidaway's abuse of the T1 criteria for his object of getting rid of all userboxes repugnant. None of that, however, changes that templates which fall under a valid and narrow reading of T1 and are being nominated honestly for those reasons are valid for deletion, and I didn't even call for a speedy on this. I have struck out the bad faith comment though, as now that I know the context of that statement it makes sense. --tjstrf 20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that, Tjstrf. -- llywrch 20:16, 2 June 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.
More