Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 11



Template:Adrenergic Agonists

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Adrenergic agonists (with a small a!) contains the same information (and a lot more). ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (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:Doug-episode-stub

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was '''move to the correct process page. TFD is not for stub templates, as explained in the page instructions.' Grutness...wha? '' 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)



There are no applicable articles for this template and there most likely never will be any. It has no real purpose. TTN (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also a stub template, so I'm moving this debate to WP:SFD where it belongs. Grutness...wha?  23:57, 11 September 2008 (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 Software open source

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unused, unmaintained. infobox software handles everything important. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see why an unmaintained template needs to be deleted. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unused. Its useful functionality is covered by another, better, template. Its existence causes confusion when someone goes to pick an infobox for a new article and potentially picks an inferior one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Its useful functionality is covered by another, better, template. Its existence may cause confusion when someone goes to pick an infobox for a new article and potentially picks an inferior one. No reason to keep an unmaintained, unused template with no substantive pages linking to it. -- -- Suntag  ☼  17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since there is a better one doing the same job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (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:Carolingians, West Francia

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar duplicate of the more seemly Template:French Carolingians. Srnec (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sidebar may be useful in some articles. Cannot see how such a reason could be considered for deletion. --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The two templates duplicate information. The sidebar is just more cluttersome. Can you explain how it might be useful? Srnec (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  delldot   &nabla;.  03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Long sidebars narrow the text space into an odd shape and make it much more difficult to position images. Using what links here and looking at the sidebar's use in articles, it narrows the text space into an odd shape and causes images to be positioned awkwardly. Also, this sidebar duplicates Template:French Carolingians. -- -- Suntag  ☼  17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This template has counterparts in Template:Carolingians, East Francia and Template:Carolingians, Middle Francia, but there is no Template:German Carolingians. If this template is defective then it and its counterparts should be improved, and Template:French Carolingians removed. Bazj (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2008 (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.