Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 11

< April 10	April 12 >

April 11 edit

Template:USArmySecs 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to Template:USSecArm merging Template:USArmySecs with Template:USSecWar. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 22:49, 11 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:USSecWar 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to Template:USSecArm merging Template:USArmySecs with Template:USSecWar. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, there is some incorrectness here, the Secretary of War should be followed by the Secretary of Defense, not by the Secretary of the Army. Or not? Kraxler (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't quite fit perfectly that way. The Department of War was split into the Departments of the Army and Air Force, and the Department of Defense was created. DoW always represented thne ground side (Army and eventually Air Force) while the Department of the Navy covered the maritime (Navy and Marines). It won't be a perfect fit either way. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 21:25, 14 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Quebec royal sites 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this template fails the first criteria, in that the template is not noteworthy from an encyclopaedic point of view. Unlike, say, Spanish royal sites, none of these places or commercial enterprises have any official royal status at all. They were simply once named after a king or queen. This template, complete with a crest, is misleading and gives undue weight to the "royal" nature of these sites in modern day Quebec. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Bob • (talk) • 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in agreement with nominator. Seems to be aimed at nought more than sticking royalist advertising on things with no genuine -- dare I say "merely nominal"? ;-) -- royal connections. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (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 section.