Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 30



Template:Kwun Tong Line

 * 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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All of these templates are on inline templates that serve no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink or colour formatting. SkierRMH 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating:
 * Template:Tsuen Wan Line
 * Template:Island Line
 * Template:Tung Chung Line
 * Template:Airport Express
 * Template:Tseung Kwan O Line
 * Template:Disneyland Resort Line
 * Template:South Island Line (East Section)
 * Template:South Island Line (West Section)
 * Template:KCR East Rail
 * Template:KCR West Rail


 * Strong speedy delete all - completely unnecessary use. I know we don't have to worry about server issues or server lag, but this is abuse of the template function. See WP:LAZY. -- linca linca  01:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - As per Linc and WP:LAZY, total waste of templatespace. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. These lazy coloured templates are likely to come back if unprotected. Ohconfucius 13:40, 31 October 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox cricket umpire

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned and superceded by Template:Infobox cricketer biography. No longer used in article namespace — AMBerry (talk | contribs) 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, as mentioned Infobox cricketer biography now includes all of the functionality of this template as fully operational features. –MDCollins (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as deprecated and superseded. SkierRMH 04:22, 7 November 2007 (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 section.

Template:Oppose Symbol and Template:Support Symbol

 * 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 deleted per CSD G4. This has been discussed so many times before. If, as Anthony suggests, that consensus needs to be reconsidered, the place to do that is WP:DRV. Xoloz 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)



Vote symbols are clearly against community consensus in WP:RFA, WP:XFD. I came across this in an RfA, it is giving out the wrong impression to users who are unaware that using vote symbols is not appropriate.. Qst 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While the image is probably not named 100% correctly (w/ the "vote"), the symbol itself is used correctly in many places. The template, however, shouldn't be used as it's not protocol (as Qst points out) in the XfD's.  (and yes, I was tempted to ironically use it here ;)  SkierRMH 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I suspect it's name is that because Template:Oppose is salted... Qst  21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't also be included in this nomination since it was created by the same editor at the same time? --Farix (Talk) 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. I've added it to the nomination above. The closer should take note that discussion above mine occurred before this change was made. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The templates are twins, and the reasoning behind one would be, in all hypothetical respects, identical to the other. Anthøny  19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete both. There's ample consensus that we don't want general-purpose voting templates on enwiki. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Wouldn't this warrant a speedy? Recreation of support and oppose. -- Chris B  •  talk  18:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral – I'm hesitant to !vote to delete these templates, primarily because one can simply use the code  and   in their 'stead, and thus deleting them would simply seem to be adding extra workload for those who wish to present their arguments with the aid of visual representation. Likewise, I'm not of the opinion that "previous community consensus" is a hugely reliable reason for deletion - after all, we're here to re-establish said consensus, as laid out in WP:CON, and precedents are not a valid replacement for logical, sound reasoning. Having said that, Voting is Evil and tools that blatantly aid that being kept is questionable...  Anthøny  19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete (and possible speedy per G4). As has been said numerous times, these kinds of templates, or support/oppose/neutral notions rather, are against strong community consensus.  We have been through this a hundred times already, with consensus remaining the same on every one of those debates.  On the other hand, yes, voting is evil.  However, the bigger underlying reason for these kinds of templates being deleted over and over again is because the English Wikipedia is not multilingual and therefore not useful.  If this were Commons or Meta then a deletion debate on this front would've been closed as speedy keep.  It's not the case here, where everyone understands English.  O2  (息 • 吹) 02:38, 01 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Strong Keep - I don't see why it should be deleted, it doesn't harm anyone. And someone else will recreate it under another name anyway. I've seen this before, but can't find it at the moment. Give me a couple of hours to find it. Rudget Contributions 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, I'm sure these were already deleted. Unnecessary cruft. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. They have uses, and if they are being used where they should not be, remove them.  Neil   ☎  13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Delete – Gurch 13:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, for the same reasons it was deleted or its deletion upheld at Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005, Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/November 2005, Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007 May 3, Deletion review/Log/2007 May 4, and Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 5. I pushed the button last time; someone else's turn. &mdash;Cryptic 14:29, 1 November 2007 (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 section.

Template:ScientologySeries

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of newer navigational tools such as Scientology and the new portal, Portal:Scientology, both of which take up much less space and are much less obtrusive on pages because the footer is defaulted to autocollapsed - I am nominating this template for deletion. At any rate "Scientology" as a topic is no longer a single article series on Wikipedia, but a larger subject matter. Those who wish to work on a smaller subset as a "Series" may create unobtrusive footers with Navbox, or smaller tighter series like Scientology and the Internet (which may itself switch to a more unobtrusive footer at some point) Sorry for the long explanation. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete - New designs look great, are easier to navigate with, and are unobtrusive and more logically arranged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs)
 * Delete The 'footer' is much less obtrusive and a bit more encompassing. Del as superseded by the footer template. SkierRMH 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The footer is indeed better. Steve Dufour 04:28, 1 November 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox England district

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete under Speedy G7 (author requested). MJCdetroit 02:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Orphaned and superceded by Template:Infobox settlement. Possibly a speedy deletion candidate. I created the infobox a few days ago without knowledge of the functionality of Infobox settlement. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note - it is a G7 candidate as Jza84 was the only editor and the template wasn't used. Marked as such on his behalf. SkierRMH 20:28, 30 October 2007 (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).