Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 20

< July 19	July 21 >

July 20 edit

Template:Uncyclopedia hint 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncyclopedia hint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't need to link people to this nonsense site. It is a site that contains libelous information, misinformation (vandalism here), where vandals edit, etc. We don't need to direct productive people away from here to that awful site. See User:Otterathome/Uncy and if we had a template "ED hint", which is just as bad, then it would definitely be gone by now. Triplestop x3 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator, feel free to delete it. But it's better than keeping the vandals here, their not constructive editors if their vandals. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 20:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's doubtful that someone who vandalizes here is going to want to contribute positively to Uncyclopedia. --B (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2009 (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:Non-free parody 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free parody (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. There is no conceivable reason why a Wikipedian-authored parody would be appropriate to include in an article. If we are using a photo or a screenshot of a parody that somebody else created, then we alreay have an appropriate template for it and this one would be not only redundant, but also incorrect. B (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (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:GA-icon 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 discussion was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GA-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Much like a voting template, a protected template only used to spawn a single image. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've checked, there are several articles that link to it and it seems extremely useful. The Flash ^{talk} 00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
800+ usages; yes, these could in theory all be replaced by direct calls to the image, but if the template is this heavily used it seems fairly clear that people find having it to be useful. Shimgray | talk | 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reason for using a template here is that if a year down the road, a decision is made to update the icon, it only has to be changed one place rather than 800 places. If people are using it as a voting template, then code could be added to cause it to not appear in WP-space or WP-talk-space. --B (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing like a voting template, actually. PC78 (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2009 (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.