Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6 edit

Template:Historic Events of November 19 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. Wizardman 02:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense personal template of a user that has zero encyclopedic usefulness. — -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless 'crap that happened on my birthday' template. Maralia (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless, to say the least. SkierRMH (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Imagine if we have one for every day. We would be full of templates everywhere. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely uneeded. Someone should root out any other individual day templates. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very useful. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst: and delete: just a casual userpage element mistakenly made into a template. Circeus (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst: and delete or Move to subpage of user space if requested by user. Pagra shtak 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. –Pomte 20:14, 11 December 2007 (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:Navyships 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. Wizardman 02:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and deprecated by {{Infobox Ship Example}}. — Maralia (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to make sure it doesn't get used again; it's been replaced by better templates. TomTheHand (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Magioladitis 10:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the newer version is better. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not used, redundant. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:17, 8 December 2007 (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:Foundation Press 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. Wizardman 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this template is useful, and it was only transcluded into 2 pages (Media and Press). I added a {{selfref}} tag with pretty much the same information at the top of these two pages (even if I doubt anyone from the Press will look up these words in order to find the foundation:press room. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded, {{selfref}} does the job quite nicely (good thinking!) Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this template has been replaced and is now redundant. Terraxos (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (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:Latest preview release/Browzar 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. Wizardman 03:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used; the related article, Browzar, was deleted: [1]. Korg (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete → per nom. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unusable w/deletion of article. SkierRMH (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mushroom (Talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned template. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:02, 8 December 2007 (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:Podgeandrodge 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. Wizardman 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary template. All related articles already well linked from the main character and show articles. Half the links are either red linked or redirect back to Podge and Rodge article.. Collectonian (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Delete as redundant to Category:Category:Podge and Rodge. There's no need for a template to navigate these articles. Terraxos 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we want to lead readers in a big happy circuit of links. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No navigational use. –Pomte 20:15, 11 December 2007 (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.