Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 8



April 8, 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 Circeus 01:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:GAF
Unnecessary due to changes at featured which incorporate the functionality of this template. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The new addition to the FA template looks much better. Harr o 5 22:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ' Keep'. featured makes no mention if the article has once been a good article. (nor should it) I don't see why it should be deleted.... Flying Canuck 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete. I wasn't aware of the feature of good=yes. Flying Canuck 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It does now, but I agree with you that it shouldn't. See Talk:F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Pagra shtak  23:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it? It was that, or have even more space taken up by this template (on the pages I switched to the space taken up by templates at the top of the page was visibly reduced. I think it's a good compromise. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once an article is featured, it doesn't matter if it was previously good or not.  Pagra shtak  00:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here: it doesn't matter to you. It possibly does matter to people who worked to get it up to good status. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although I'm not crazy about the new addition to featured either.  Pagra shtak  23:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't have a particular opinion on whether a FA should say whether it was previously featured, but including such information in the featured template is definitely a better way than with a separate template. — jdorje (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. CG 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but with possibility of restoring if functionality is later removed from the FA template. (Deletion is on the basis of redundancy, which is fair enough in my book; if it becomes unredundant then it ought to be undeleted...) TheGrappler 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree absolutely. I recall the last deletion debate was quite contentious, but it resulted in no consensus IIRC. As the only basis for this nomination is that it's redundant, if someone decides to wait until the end and suddenly have "issues" with the modifications to featured, I'd happily recreate this template. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with restoring if GA functionality is later removed from the FA template. --Vir 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cedars 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It makes the talk pages look cleaner and less crowded. Tarret 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both this and the change to the feature template. A silly add-on to a silly process. Marskell 08:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this. We should conclude a vote at the featured template talk page to see if we keep it or not. CG 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And we should also ask User:Raul654, the Featured Article Director, for his opinion (not that he has an absolute veto, of course). FA is policy and GA is not. With due respect to the people who are into it, there are many who don't like GA. I certainly don't like the idea of hitching the little green circle to the FA process. Marskell 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The featured modification makes this obsolete, but I'm not a fan of it either. --Optichan 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.