Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26

Template:Infobox Software2

Was a fork of Template:Infobox Software, with the intention of having the software versions on a different page so that the main page didn't need to be edited for each new release. While this template accomplishes that goal, it makes the method of editing the release number/date needlessly obscure, and creates a whole host of unnecessary pages (2 per instance). There's no real problem with minor edits to change the version number, anyway. --Mike Peel 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I don't understand. Innit pretty cool to not change the whole article just to update the version number? --Ysangkok 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coolness of it doesn't matter - the issue is that it's obscure and overcomplicated for people who don't know about the system to update the version number. It's also unnecessary: editing the whole article to change the version number is perfectly fine. Mike Peel 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anaheim NHL

Replaced by {{NHL Team}}, only difference is size of logo px. — MrDolomite | Talk 05:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - over infobox-ification. NHL Team does fine. 64.178.98.65 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete. Xiner (talk, email) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anthropocentric

I think the text is pretty self explanatory. "This article does not express a biocentric view". -Amark moo! 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don't understand. Is the text of a template not supposed to be self-explanatory? —Ruakh_TALK 06:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Amarkov's trying to imply that a biocentric view is not necessarily a good thing in articles. --ais523 13:19, 26 January 2007 (U T C)
Delete Amarkov has a point - it's not that biocentric POV is a bad thing, it's that, well, an encyclopedia written by humans, for humans, might, um, represent a human POV. Besides, notice, it's unused. 64.178.98.65 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should an IP be voting here? Xiner (talk, email) 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, not a vote. More to the point, the IP is right. Gavia immer (u|t) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 64.178.98.65 Gavia immer (u|t) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sort of POV template. Nuke it. :O .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Dallas

Delete. Single use redirect of Infobox city.. MJCdetroit 03:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) --MJCdetroit 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the idea behind it was to cut back on coding at the actual Dallas, Texas article.. where it is transcluded. I know that isn't common practice.. but it isn't strictly a "redirect," it's a double transclusion. drumguy8800 C T 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cutting down on coding is not a valid reason for single use templates. If you think it should be, discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace, but as the policy stands, they're not allowed. -Amark moo! 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tons of articles have huge, unwieldy infoboxes. Xiner (talk, email) 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salt Lake City infobox

Delete. Single use redirect of Infobox city. --MJCdetroit 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where do these single use templates come from? -Amark moo! 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. Xiner (talk, email) 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]