Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24 edit

Template:Gambia LGA 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 delete. IronGargoyle 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Administrative divisions of The Gambia}}, which includes all Gambian LGAs and more information as well, has made this obselete --Nyttend 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Iamunknown 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-to-reach-consensus-or-otherwise-avoid-relisting-because-this-template-is-redundant-and-obviously-superseded. Gracenotes^T § 14:01, 3 March 2007 (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:Deletedpage-w 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 delete. –Llama man^talk_contribs 01:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identical to {{deletedpage}}, except for a line linking to the website that the deleted page refers to. If sites are considered non-notable for our purposes, we shouldn't link to them from the deletedpage notice. Ral315 » 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary and unused. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Template creator, but if a consensus to delete is reached, then I won't pursue keeping this further. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... BuickCenturyDriver: being the template creator isn't a reason to keep, I don't think. Nothing that I've created has been deleted (besides through WP:CSD#U1), but if anything's nominated, I'd have to face that objectively... which, I grant, would be hard. Relying on an external link for article content (often not following NPOV) is unencyclopedic, so delete. Gracenotes^T § 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template looks like a spectacularly awful idea. It basically helps out spammers by listing their website here: should we ever remove the NOFOLLOW links from the namespace, it would make spamming even worse. Buick, can you explain why this template was created. I might be willing to reconsider should I know the reasoning, but as of now, I'm completely lost. 64.178.98.57 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created it because the webmaster (or people who visit the site) usually end up recreating the article about the webpage to the point where the article gets salted with a {{deletedpage}}. The template is an extension by providing a link to the webpage in salting so users can see why the article should not be created again. An example is The Noob, which was salted, but contains a link to the site. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, provide a link to the AFD, not to the website itself. The deletion log can be checked, however, and usually makes note of the AFD. Gracenotes^T § 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I like the idea of linking to a site if an article on it doesn't exist, this isn't the way to do it. The whole point behind protected deleted is that vanity content doesn't clutter up the encyclopedia, and this is counterintuitive. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a linking service. If anyone wants to find a link to the topic, they can use a search engine. The reason the page was deleted should be recorded in the deletion summary and this will show up in the log linked to by {{deletedpage}}. mattbr³⁰ 15:47, 27 February 2007 (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:mnclink 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to accomplish such a task can be done using Pipe Tricks. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not very useful. --Sable232 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made redundant by advances in the MediaWiki software. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never found it useful enough to use. --Station Attendant 17:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 13:50, 26 February 2007 (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:mnclist 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of these cities can easily be accomplished by using Pipe Tricks. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might have been kind of useful, but I don't think it was used much. BTW, substituting this template causes problems. --Sable232 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sable232. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --Station Attendant 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 13:51, 26 February 2007 (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:Mexico-copyright 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused non-free image tag. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listed here as deprecated.Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence from creator's contributions that it was ever used, so there is no need to create a redirect. Also, delete Category:Mexican Government Images. --Iamunknown 09:18, 25 February 2007 (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:FrenchNavyImage 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused non-free image tag. Sole transclusion is at Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace, which isn't an image. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, create redirect (without history) to Template:Db-noncom, and delete Category:Copyrighted images from the French Navy too. --Iamunknown 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say don't redirect, since if it hasn't been used in the past, there's little chance that someone will randomly decide to correctly tag an image with two left brackets, 15 characters in specific permutations, and two right brackets. Gracenotes^T § 14:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was formerly used quite a lot. --Iamunknown 19:42, 3 March 2007 (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:MapleStory series 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 delete. IronGargoyle 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox that links to two articles. A single wikilink in each article suffices for this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a hyperlink or see also link will work, and the links to the external wikis are against WP:EL. Gracenotes^T § 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are currently only 2 articles directly related to the game. Pomte 09:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Gracenotes; only two articles in it and it has external links. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:20, 6 March 2007 (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:Shopping-bag 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 delete. IronGargoyle 05:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused non-free image tag. I'm also having a hard time telling whether this tag was unnecessarily created for use in a single article, or if it's just a joke. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, rereading the template, I guess it's for shopping bags. Still, it's unused and unnecessary. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace/subst and delete. We don't need such an overly specific template. -Amarkov moo! 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace, do not substitute, then delete. Please note creator's other contributions for many other odd templates created out of process that should likely be deleted too. Delete Category:Images of Plastic Bags as well. --Iamunknown 09:25, 25 February 2007 (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:Indiancopyright 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 delete. IronGargoyle 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused non-free image tag. Previous nomination in April 2006, but the "keep" arguments are irrelevant, as Indian images with reserved rights use a different (fair use) tag from this one. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: copyright tag with no use on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why would you ever think of tagging an image with a template that explicitly says not to? -Amarkov moo! 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Iamunknown 09:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, not meant to ever be used anymore, so why is it around? Might as well just WP:SNOW, subst all occurences, and be done with it. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:08, 27 February 2007 (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:NationalAuditOfficeCopyright 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 'delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused non-free image tag. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Copyright tag with no use on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 05:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Iamunknown 09:20, 25 February 2007 (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:User:ACBest/SpokenOutOfDate 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 userfy. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be used anywhere. --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page appears to have been attempted to be created the userspace...in any case, it appears to not have any intention of being implemented anywhere. I'm willing to change my vote if someone can provide evidence of its usage (and as a side note: most, if not all of the spoken articles are at least a few edits out of date). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Comment Hi! I Created this template for use on my pages only - hope this clears it up! Thanks AC Best My Contributions 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should userfy it. Just move it to User:ACBest/SpokenOutOfDate --Iamunknown 19:44, 3 March 2007 (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:Cityrail Station 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 Redirect to {{Cityrail Station alt}} —dgies^t_c 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been obsoleted by {{Cityrail Station alt}}. I've moved all of the transclusions to the new template. --Harryboyles 06:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the template has been used on a couple of talk pages as an illustrative example. They should not have been changed to the new template, and if so they should be changed back. The template is the basis of the other newer template and I'd like the code kept for reference purposes. JROBBO 09:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - looks like an easier name to remember anyway - really, there should be a history merge and the name with alt should be deleted. --Random832 21:05, 1 March 2007 (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.