Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 22

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 02:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lee Clark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not used in any articles. Content appears to be article content, not something that a template would be useful for. This template should be deleted. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom - it's obviously not a useful template - in fact - it's obviously not a template.--danielfolsom 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no using templates to store content. - Koweja 11:42, 23 August 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.

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 02:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Javed Sheikh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to have been accidentally created, only contains the publicity photo tag. — Calliopejen1 22:01, 22 August 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.

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 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Onride Photo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Does not comply with WP:NDA and is only included in a handul of images, a place where most people won't even see it. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unnecessary disclaimer. Saying it was taken with permission is one thing, but we don't need a warning. - Koweja 11:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Further, we don't actually need "park permission" to use applicable images, so it's not clear that part of the template is needed either. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 23 August 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.

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 no consensus without prejudice for relisting, once template (and related infoboxes) are converted and orphaned. IronGargoyle 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox begin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Depreciated to {{Taxobox}}. — Verisimilus T 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, once all of the uses of {{Taxobox begin}} have been transformed to use {{taxobox}}, then by all means kill this puppy. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. {{Taxobox begin}} is only the first in a series of templates that together form a complete taxobox/infobox. _all_ of those templates should be put up for deletion at the same time, preferably after all instances of them have been replaced by {{taxobox}}. Mike Peel 21:51, 31 August 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.

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 all. IronGargoyle 02:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:1992 Brisbane Broncos Premiership (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:1993 Brisbane Broncos Premiership (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:1997 Brisbane Broncos Premiership (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:1998 Brisbane Broncos Premiership (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:2000 Brisbane Broncos Premiership (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:2006 Brisbane Broncos Premiership (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The reasons for deletion of this template.

1. The template is depreceated.
2. The template is orphaned (but a few links still exist from outside mainspace)
3. The template has been taken over by {{Brisbane Broncos Premiership}}.

SpecialWindler talk 09:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of need given new template--danielfolsom 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - given the analogous nature of these templates, I've combined six nominations into one. (diff) Gracenotes^T § 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you! ;) Yes I suppose I probably should've done that - sorry for giving you the extra work --danielfolsom 04:49, 23 August 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.

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 all. IronGargoyle 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This nomination contains latest release templates with no respective article.

Each Latest preview release or Latest stable release template should be used in the article. (This system can be a bit cumbersome, but that is somewhat beside the point.) The above templates have no corresponding article, because the article never existed, or the article was deleted. They are unused, have no use, and probably should be deleted. Gracenotes^T § 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• D per Gracenotes, and the fact of their orphan status. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Gracenotes and Anonymous Dissident. --MZMcBride 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Here here! Been going through the templates to categorize them and we have way too many of these. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:49, 25 August 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.

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. IronGargoyle 02:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Most of the schools in this template redirect right back to the district, making this template pointless.. Wizardman 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Most GVRD city articles have school templates similar to this one (I created all but 1 of them, AFAIK). The ~10 redirecting links in the template are all elementary schools, which is roughly 1/4 of all the links in the template. If deleted, the only page that links to these individual school articles would be the district's. It's also a key component of Richmond, British Columbia#Education. Carson 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 00:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

• Keep per Carson. Dominictimms 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The template actually looks quite useful. Most regions have them and this one is used quite often. Plasticup ^T/C 15:45, 22 August 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.