Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 26

< December 25	December 27 >

December 26 edit

Template:FPCresult 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have here a template witht he only purpose to add boldface to a string, WHAT IN THE NAME OF THE THREE GODS??? _→AzaToth 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, to quote the page history "This simple template is to assist a bot in promoting FPC candidates. Please do not delete this template." It's protected and in place on thousands of pages to standardize formats and make things easier for a bot to parse. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above. — Arjun 05:21, 27 December 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:Cute Is What We Aim For 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one articles used this (The Same Old Blood Rush with a New Touch, I took it out), and all links are already within article body. --HarryCane 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are too many red links and not enough blue links to justify having this box. Harryboyles 05:07, 29 December 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:CityRail CityCircle clockwise 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was only used on the five articles on the Cityrail stations on the City Circle, under the Neighboring stations template. It has become redundant with the new ordering scheme based on this page: http://www.cityrail.info/timetable/index.jsp --Harryboyles 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, it is now redundant for the CityRail network. Comment Is this template still being used? And I think you meant this page: http://www.cityrail.info/networkmaps/mainmap.jsp Pikablu0530 12:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, there are a few minor differences between the two links above regarding the line order. One of which is that on the timetable page, the South line comes above the Cumberland line. Anyway, that's a minor point. The templates are not used at the moment.Harryboyles 12:38, 26 December 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:CityRail CityCircle anticlockwise 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, this template was only used on the five articles on the Cityrail stations on the City Circle, under the Neighboring stations template. It has become redundant with the new ordering scheme based on this page: http://www.cityrail.info/timetable/index.jsp --Harryboyles 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above. Pikablu0530 12:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment above Harryboyles 12:38, 26 December 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:PDL NE Stadiums 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is considered because when the USL Premier Development League realigned its teams into new divisions in 2007, this division ceased to exist. All teams still in existence have moved to other divisions, and their pages (as well as their stadiums' pages) reflect that.

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:PDL SA Stadiums 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is considered because when the USL Premier Development League realigned its teams into new divisions in 2007, this division ceased to exist. All teams still in existence have moved to other divisions, and their pages (as well as their stadiums' pages) reflect that.

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.