Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

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 subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox template for userspace, with only one editor using it. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Userfy. No harm in letting this user keep it, but it's not what the template space is for. PC78 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete - useless template. Information in template could easily be typed up by individual users. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Userfy - 100% agree with PC78, this is useless as a template, but in the userspace it would be okay--Cailil ^talk 14:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Userfy, this isn't much different than a userbox. It definitely does not belong in the template namespace though. *Cremepuff 222* 00:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Subst then delete. I see no reason for keeping it around if it's only being used in one place. {{subst:User:^demon/sig}}

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is and can only be one entry in this template, effectively making it useless. The template is only used in one article, the same it links to. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are other submersibles, the David, etc., we just need to flesh these articles out... --plange 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any other Confederate submarines anywhere. I'm not arguing explicitly that there aren't any, but could you point me to the right articles? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are some submersibles. My only concern is that there may be too many... check out List of ships of the Confederate States Navy. I'm sure we can figure out something that works. *Cremepuff 222*

I'm confused, the link you provided (List of ships of the Confederate States Navy) only lists one submarine, the H. L. Hunley. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:10, 26 September 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This template is used for a signature, which is forbidden, see WP:SIG. — Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 15:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, the template namespace isn't for accommodating the needs of particular users' signatures. Sebi _[talk] 06:47, 19 September 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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent misunderstanding of the correct use of templates by original creator. Populated instances of {{Infobox Rally}} were saved as separate templates, and then each transcluded into a single article. I've embedded the populated templates back into the relevant articles, so the templates can now be deleted. — DH85868993 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - As all content has been correctly insert into the article, these are not needed. AlexJ 13:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 01:19, 22 September 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

unnecessary extra level of redirection for a disambig template: rarely used and easily merged individually w/relevant articles — Chris Cunningham 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

~~oppose~~ because I don't understand the first half of the nomination --Gronky 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles can be disambiguated directly. making Mediawiki fetch an extra template for the same of transcluding a pre-written disambig might be worth it if the subject in question were difficult to explain or really needed to be constantly disambiguated, but it doesn't. At any rate, if it fails proposal I'll probably just strip it off the four pages it's used on and speedy it. Chris Cunningham 12:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Subst and delete; a meta-template is not needed for this, and besides, the use of the word "free" in an article is best explained in the article itself (not via a template). Gracenotes^T § 00:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Subst and delete - template content is redundant to the information in the article's lead. Not useful in many articles except the one on free software. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
delete, no subst redundant and pedantic. It should be clear at the beginning of the article. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 01:18, 22 September 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Not in use, and impractical as either a dispute or a cleanup template. >Radiant< 09:54, 18 September 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Procedural. Tagged for speedy deletion "The map is orignal research, and the link is dead. I've looked up Francois Bernier and this does not match his observations of races". In any case, appears to be unused.. Pascal.Tesson 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete unused, if necessary just subst. Carlosguitar 09:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete unused. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, probably not subst: either if it's original research. I hate the colors too. :) *Cremepuff 222* 00:16, 26 September 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.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 18

[edit] Template:Infobox Filipino Wikipedian

[edit] Template:CSN submersibles

[edit] Template:Mehran

[edit] 1973 Rally templates

[edit] Template:Free software

[edit] Template:GuidelineSectionContradiction

[edit] Template:François Bernier Racial Definitions

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search