Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 12

< September 11	September 13 >

September 12 edit

Template:StarCraft universe 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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message left in edit summary when template was blanked says "open tasks box removed due to almost all being complete". Has been blanked for almost five months. Balloonguy 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? Unused with no content, looks like this template is done with. PC78 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template:StarCraft already exists. --Roehl Sybing 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not useful at all. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:54, 19 September 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:Temporality 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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, uncategorized, last edit was on 8 Dec 2006. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused. Dfrg.msc 05:49, 12 September 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:MergeFromPartial 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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, uncategorized, last edit was on 8 Jun 2006. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused. Dfrg.msc 05:49, 12 September 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:CompactTOCrefs3 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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the oddball offspring of the CompactTOC series of templates that is seeing no usage. Circeus 03:54, 12 September 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:Mariowiki 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 keep. — Malcolm (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template claiming content was copied from another site. Although this site is GDFL you shouldn't use another wiki as a reference. Currently not used on any mainspace page.. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as it was created less than 24 hours ago it's not surprising that it's not been used yet. Secretlondon 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dummmmmmy asked me if we could import pages from the MarioWiki, and he wanted me to improve the template. – SmiddleT C @ 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Personally I'd like to see more of this sort of thing. I've seen plenty of articles here that have been cut & pasted from other wikis where the quality standards are significantly lower. PC78 19:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the imports going to be done via Special:Import? FunPika 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you get a developer to do so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just now noticed how special:import is useless. FunPika 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it. I don't know how and what to import. All I am trying to do is help the mariowiki and wikipedia. The mario wiki is licensed under GFDL. If you wan't to disscuss the quaility of the articles go to their site. They have their own rules on copying from wikipedia. Remember, we can improve the pages to meet wikipedia's manual of style. Read the template and the link for further help. {{mariowiki}}

Keep; I'd actually like to see more of this style of template for copy-and-paste of permissible sources. It both attracts attention to the fact that this is meant to be a legitimate fork, and that the source may have lower quality standards and the article might need attention. — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps a more generic template that covered more than just a single wiki would be best? PC78 11:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please not delete it and talk about the template at template talk.--Arceus fan 20:35, 19 September 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:Tfdx 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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, superseded by the functionality currently in Template:Tfd. No longer needed. --Farix (Talk) 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‹ The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. ›‹The template Tfdx is being considered for deletion.›

~~Head asplodes~~, er, delete, superseded. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant template now that {{Tfd}} has a parameter. Could also redirect this. Melsaran (talk) 21:00, 12 September 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.