Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 14

< October 13	October 15 >

October 14 edit

Template:Uncyclopedia template only for use on talk pages 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 Speedy delete as recreation. >Radiant< 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more reason to note that Uncyclopedia has an article about a topic than that anything else does. Arguably, there is less reason than to note many other things that we don't not, since Uncyclopedia is (duh) utterly unencyclopedic. I could go on (and will if this is seriously disputed) but I'd rather keep this short and simple. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per stated rationale. If we decide not to delete, it should be far smaller and more discreet. - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jmabels stated points. I would add that as of this date, this template seems to have been created solely to use on the Oscar Wilde page. An ongoing debate there lead to a compromise wherein his noteriety at uncyclopedia is mentioned at the OW in popular culture page. I also agree that if it is kept it needs to be much smaller. MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Uncylopedia templates have been deleted many times now. They keep coming back like a bad nightmare (last time Template:Uncyclopedia was locked from editing). Uncyclopedia is not a sister project, it does not get preferential treatment. -Stbalbach 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - previous TfD's here, here, here. Talk page here. -- Stbalbach 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- already deleted a few times. bogdan 08:26, 15 October 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:Zahi Al-Mogherbi Family 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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable family. I've tagged all the linked articles with db-bio Pascal.Tesson 17:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all linked articles are non-notable and have been speedily deleted. LittleDan^talk 03:05, 19 October 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:Plymouth Argyle F.C. Youth Squad 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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Templates for 1st team squad are okay but shouldn't be inculded for reserve and youth team squads. Kingjamie 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Kingjamie 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete the player articles too. Punkmorten 17:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template and players, unless they've played professionally. – Elisson • T • C • 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also Delete the non-notable players and the non-notable coach Kingjamie 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No first team experience = No article, surely. King fish erswift 12:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete all players that are not first-team squad members as well. Qwghlm 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first team squads of relevance only -- MLD · T · C · @: 14:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable youth team, can't have exception. Matt86hk talk 00:35, 20 October 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:PD-PhilippinesGov 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 rewrite, rename, but not delete. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status not coherent with the Wikipedia license. Fred-Chess 12:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete, or move to a location that does not contain "PD" (as it is not Public Domain as wikipedia understands that term), and add a sentence about this being a non-free licence (see {{StateGov-AK}} or {{PD-Italy}}. -- Eugène van der Pijll 13:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a move, if that were to be necessary. I did make the template in my newbie days (with a different understanding of Philippine PD), and as the third Philippine image template to be slated for TfD (one deleted, one kept), it would be nice if this was kept as well. It would be quite a hassle to leave many images unlicensed and possibly deleted. --Sky Harbor 22:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The permission-based provision is only for commercial use of the image, not to use it as if it were PD. --Sky Harbor 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia requires that images it uses to be available under a license which permits commercial use. All other images must be used under a fair-use clause. bogdan 07:24, 15 October 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:No wiki 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 speedy deletion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates use of {{tl}} Alfakim-- talk 11:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the creator. I thought I had thought of something new. :( Go ahead, delete it. I will be sad though... Chris53516 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as db-author, and marked as such. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:45, 14 October 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:Sumbox 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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used by a single page Sum 41 at the moment and doesn't seem to fit for inclusion in other Sum 41 articles. I can't think why it was made except maybe to prevent other editors from easily changing the genre of the group (there is an ongoing dispute on that matter). Whatever the reason it seems wasteful as all it does is include another template called Infobox_band. P.S. After deleting this template the Infobox_band template would ideally be restored to the page so there would be no overall change in content (also the article would get its fair use images back which apparently can't be included in templates). Cedars 01:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Template unnessesary ,can be replaced with a much more usefull infobox_band as Cedars says AVeRY! 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I do not know the rules regarding this matter. --Adriaan90 08:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, single-use infobox. ({{Infobox band}} can be used in its place; if there were no infobox to replace it this !vote would be subst-and-delete). By the way, the template was blanked during this discussion and I've therefore reverted it; if there was a good reason for the blanking, feel free to use noinclude tags. --ais523 12:21, 16 October 2006 (U T C)

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:Geoscale-US-trails 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 Speedy delete. Eugène van der Pijll 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template with the wrong name. Other templates of this type use Geolinks... not Geoscale..., so I moved it to give it the correct name. Now all that is left is a redirect with no links to it. Notary137 21:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this go under WP:RFD? This is where this gets confusing! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as the nominator is the sole contributor (to both locations of the template), it goes under speedy deletion. (And I deleted it) -- Eugène van der Pijll 22:02, 14 October 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.