Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 13

< August 12	August 14 >

August 13 edit

Template:Tmnhrvcol edit

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. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant; better-named hrvcoln. No one is using. Suggest delete. Ling.Nut 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What on earth is it? I can't make heads or tails out of it. Perhaps it needs to be documented, which is why it's not being used. Neil916 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the primary author. It is a Harvard citation template, using colons for page numbers [for example, (Smith 2006:2-5)]. It identical to Template:Harvcol. The latter has documentation, and also is named more consistently with existing naming conventions. Probably I should have moved the first version rather than making two and requesting one be deleted, but am a newbie. Sorry. Still request delete. Ling.Nut 01:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then, per author request and nom. Neil916 (Talk) 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:NSFWImage edit

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. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another disclaimer template; see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. cesarb 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mi ra 09:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there probably SHOULD be disclaimers on Wikipedia, but for some reason this policy is considered a near-member of the 5 pillars. --M @r ē ino 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:NSFWLink edit

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 delete by Tawker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another disclaimer template; see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. cesarb 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mi ra 09:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there probably SHOULD be disclaimers on Wikipedia, but for some reason this policy is considered a near-member of the 5 pillars. --M @r ē ino 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Cesar B said on above, it fails Wikipedia:No disclaimer tempates which is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia. Daniel's page ☎ 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:TES-weapons edit

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 deleted by (aeropagitica). --Zoz (t) 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization(merging) of articles renders this template obsolete. dv82matt 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to just put this up for speedy delete per G6: "Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article." Seems to fall under non-controversial housekeeping. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done as you suggested. dv82matt 07:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Libdempic edit

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 re-tag images, then delete. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing special about Liberal Democrats that makes pictures of them especially qualified as "fair use". If anything, the opposite is true -- it should be reasonably easy to make free-license replacements for most of these pictures --Carnildo 00:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 08:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.