< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

Template:Infobox tornado outbreak EF

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. IronGargoyle 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox tornado outbreak EF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have modified ((Infobox tornado outbreak)) to allow it to work for the new Enhanced Fujita Scale. This template is now redundant.↔NMajdan•talk 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Pretoria infobox

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. IronGargoyle 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Pretoria infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

By its nature, template could only be used on one article, Pretoria. Coding for template has been moved to article. --Nyttend 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Tornado Chart EF

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. IronGargoyle 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Tornado Chart EF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have modified ((Tornado Chart)) so it can now be used with the Fujita Scale and the new Enhanced Fujita Scale. This template is now redundant. --↔NMajdan•talk 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Stn art lnk

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. This template does not provide indiscriminate information, but rather valuable external resources that we do not host here. The nomination also seems to have been withdrawn midway through, though nobody bothered closing it at that time. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 08:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Stn art lnk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is used to link to timetables, providing a travel guide like information, nominated as per: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I just add that there is not a Wikipedia is not a timetable guideline or policy. This has been proposed but not officially adopted. This means, I would suggest, that the community hasn't reached an agreement on this. I don't think the edits such as you made to Garforth railway station are justified or explained by your summary "Clean up services: Wikipedia is not a timetable". I don't believe that a summary of services such as what you removed constitutes a timetable, the proposed policy doesn't seem to be clear as to what does either. I think this is useful information. I have seen articles which include the minutes of departures which I agree should be removed though. Adambro 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template was removed from two article on the gorunds of duplication of information, would you prefer I put this one back in and remove Template:Infobox UK station, the latter presents the same information ommitting the timetable part. I sence emotional attachement to a template that should not exist. FAO: Adambro: points two and five of the WP:NOT#IINFO. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whilst I appreciate your intentions, I don't think it is necessary to remove it on grounds of duplication. I think it is appropriate to have it both in the external links and in the infobox. The suggestion that I might prefer you to have removed the infobox puzzles me somewhat. This would obviously be undesirable. Thank you for highlighting the points in WP:NOT#IINFO as I asked, but I fail to see how either prevents us from using this template. I also fail to "sence emotional attachement" to this template. Adambro 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know categories follows a few rules, one of them is avoiding redundancy, or duplicating data. I see templates, article, anything the same way. If a piece of information is present twice, one of the instances goes regardless of a specific rule existing. I believe I have accuratly quoted rules present and I don‘t see there being any place to interpret them. The template clearly shows information already present in an infobox (which is used and used again) and there is no need to have the information duplicated. If you do not wish this template to be deleted or remove them you must want the station infobox to be deleted, it‘s one or the other, not both. I am currenly not permitted to go forward with the deletion if this template which in my view is an utter waste of space and other than showing timetables and a link to multimap (exclusive linking, is that advertising?) is of no use. There really is nothing worthy of retaining in this template that isn‘t done in another template. I will admit that the coordinates could be showed in the station infobox along with a link to station information which is currently present. Additionaly, the information present on the National Rail doesnt really fit an encyclopedia as it relates to toilet, lifts, restaurant information, which to some degree is comparable to travel guide information. To be honnest, I can probably do with deleting this template from articles due to the duplication of information and or finding better ways to show information, I‘m simply trying to do things properly. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, please be civil. Secondly, I did read your comments (but see below). Third, surely how users use the template should be crucial in whether it is kept or not.
As regards to duplication, my personal preference would be to keep this and destroy the coords system, which I find irritating in the extreme. However I quite accept that other people may prefer it, so I'm happy for both to appear - one at the top and one at the bottom. The two systems seem to complement, not duplicate, each other.– Tivedshambo (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm shocked by how quickly this issue has developed, it seems that a clear consensus has been reached but it seems Captain Scarlet suggests he will ignore this. If, as he wishes, this TfD is concluded, he should be able to see that most editors want to keep this template, the implication of which being that removing it from articles would be unconstructive, go against the consensus, and ultimately could lead to his account been blocked.
Captain Scarlet has emphasised his point that 'Wikipedia is not a timetable' and also assumed some contributers haven't taken time to study the issue (User talk:M0RHI#stn_art_lrnk). I would suggest this is not the case but also question whether he has failed to read my comments regarding 'Wikipedia is not a timetable'. There is no such policy or guideline and the proposed draft does not define what timetable information is.
I won't repeat the concerns of other editors but would highlight the latest comments by M0RHI (signed 06:33, 28 February 2007), and those by Tivedshambo on Captain Scarlet's talk page as being of particular importance.
Captain scarlet has admitted in his last comment here that he has strugled to remain civil and follow talk page etiquette, maybe he needs a Wikibreak. Adambro 09:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must agree with the majority of what RFBailey has said. As we are discussing external links, we can be more relaxed about WP:NOT and instead focus on the external links guidelines. Regarding the concerns about MultiMap, the guidelines say we should avoid "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" but I don't think this is the case with MultiMap. WP:EL also says that "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" should be considered. In this case, WP:NOT probably rules out timetable info but WP:EL allows us to link to this is it will be useful for the reader. Adambro 12:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Underdiscussion

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

"This policy or guideline is under discussion on its talk page". Well, so are most of them, that's what talk pages are there for. I entirely fail to see the point of this template. >Radiant< 10:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: the nominator sabotaged the template immediately after nominating it for deletion.[2] I have reverted it to the previous version. Dhaluza 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: it should also be noted that immediately before nominating the template for deletion at 10:12, the nominator removed the tag from the WP:N guideline page at 10:11,[3] escalating an edit war that ultimately resulted in the page being protected[4]. Dhaluza 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Useful for when "disputed" is a bit strong, but it may alter soon. Adam Cuerden talk 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Bondpedia Award

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. IronGargoyle 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Bondpedia Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Award for wiki which doesn't even have an article. NN and maybe SPAM. --Smmurphy(Talk) 05:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:Db-reason

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 keep, template is a key part of WP:SPEEDY, and there seems to be some misunderstanding about it's use. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Db-reason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary template. All standard speedy deletion reasons have their own templates with default verbiage. This template allows people to nominate articles for deletion for reasons that fall outside of the speedy deletion guidelines (i.e. junk, neologism, etc.). --NMChico24 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:User atheist a

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User atheist a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparently a typo. No links. — Randall Bart 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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:User ateist

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User ateist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clearly a typo. No links. — Randall Bart 19:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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