Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 3
< December 2 | December 4 > |
---|
December 3
editDecision was delete
The result of the debate was delete. Martinp23 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC) This template doesn't provide any information on the image's copyright status. In fact, it's been that way for a year now, and that doesn't seem to have motivated people to tag these images with valid tags (e.g. {{gfdl-self}}, {{seal}}, {{symbol}}, etc.). It's kind of confusing having image tags that don't present any inforation on their licence status here; a simple category could do as well if needed. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|
- 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 Martinp23 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A template linking to various Buffy fan films that are under AfD as being, well, fan films (one of the links is external). Danny Lilithborne 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wait until the AfDs have finished, then cleanup if a reasonable number of the films are kept, or delete if most are deleted. --ais523 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, most of them are getting deleted via AFD. Proto::► 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete AFDs are done, only one survived, does not aid in navigation. Hbdragon88 00:58, 11 December 2006 (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 page.
- 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 deleted by Eagle 101. Whispering 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Test not used since August. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23 3 December 2006 (GMT). 20:23, 3 December 2006 (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 page.
- 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how useful this would be, and it would seriously mess up any articles it is used in. No transclusions. ><RichardΩ612 ER 16:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't seem completely useless (I can imagine it being used to show a 6-round tournament), and I don't think it would 'seriously mess up articles'. --ais523 17:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, can be used for sporting events and stuff like that, current events and so on. Unless a better template is found, one should keep it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, has a clear and definite use. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 04:48, 7 December 2006 (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 page.
- 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 Martinp23 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Made obsolete by {{Infobox Australian Place}} and is not in use anymore. --TheJosh 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. feydey 16:33, 5 December 2006 (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 page.
- 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 Martinp23 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Template is obsolete because of {{Infobox Australian Place}} and has no transclusions. Orderinchaos78 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obsolete --TheJosh 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. ><RichardΩ612 ER 16:33, 3 December 2006 (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 page.
- 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 Also, would it be possible for us to have one listing with all of the remaining Australian infoboxes which have been superseded? Martinp23 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Template is obsolete because of {{Infobox Australian Place}} and has no transclusions. --◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 07:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obsolete --TheJosh 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. ><RichardΩ612 ER 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant. Terence Ong 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessarily, kill it. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 04:50, 7 December 2006 (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 page.
- 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 Martinp23 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Made obsolete by Infobox Australian Place. No transluctions exist anymore (upgraded by TheJoshBot) --TheJosh 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obsolete --TheJosh 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 2006 (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 page.
Decision was delete
The result of the debate was delete. Martinp23 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Per discussions at WT:CASH this template is now orphaned and obsolete. Delete as it has been replaced by {{infobox road}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|
Decision was merge and redirect
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Martinp23 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Unused. Redundant, see Template:Patent law. --Edcolins 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|
Decision was no consensus
The result of the debate was no consensus. Martinp23 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Unused. Doesn't appear very useful. --Edcolins 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
|