Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 26

< November 25	November 27 >

November 26 edit

Template:VIT University 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VIT University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two target articles this navbox is quite pointless Muhandes (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is likely that the merge proposal at Talk:VIT University will result in the two articles on individual schools being merged into the main article in accord with WP:UNIGUIDE. Even if the merges do not occur, there is no reason to have a navigation box just for the departments within a university. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2011 (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:Zodsign1 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 discussion was delete, although I could salt it, that wouldn't prevent recreation under a different name. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zodsign1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not an appropriate use of templates. Repetitive information should be in a parent article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - this isn't a template, it's an article masquerading as one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete an abuse of the template system. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content should be in Astrological _sign, shirley --109.151.199.14 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per The Bushranger N^oformation ^Talk 21:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Putting a mini-article into a template in order to spam the content to many articles, where a link would suffice, is a serious abuse of the template system. Hans Adler 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is being misused to duplicate a significant amount of text between articles—a misuse of templates, and a misunderstanding of how articles should be organized. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though make the text much more concise. Alternatively, please suggest a way to differentiate between a tropical sign, a sidereal sign, a constellation and an IAU zone defined by a constellation as this is integral to the description of each sign. The text will be easier to administer and reach agreement if it is standardised for each of the 12 signs especially as these pages are frequently vandalised by ISP editors. Robert Currey talk 02:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all irrelevant, templates are specifically *not* to be used as mini-articles. What you are discussing is outside the scoop of this TfD discussion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a WP rule or guideline that states this? If so please direct me. Robert Currey talk 18:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among the rules is Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could write an article on that, and then link to it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and Delete article masquerading as a template. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from orbit, this isn't a template, it's a one-sided mini-article. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had to spend a few minutes wondering where the template WAS. This is clearly an attempt to force cruft (or whatever the word currently is) into every article, hideously contrived. doktorb _words^deeds 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hans Adler. bobrayner (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Misuse of the template format to spam poorly sourced in-universe cruft across multiple articles. This mini-article should be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT: Has no business being here now or ever again Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 13:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the use of the template is purely a matter of practicality. The astrology project has an active discussion on whether information of this sort needs to be present on every astrology zodiac-page. The overwhelming consensus there is that it should, and there should be consistency in the information presented. If the information needs to be amended, that can be done easily by one change to one template, rather than requiring complicated rewrites on all of the 12-part series of articles. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus my left foot. It's clear that the consensus you speak of comes from one-sided Astrology project members, not the greater community (the greater community is participating here). It's been suspected that this so-called consensus is the result of meatpuppetry, and there are threads at ANI and elsewhere concerning the POV pushing of the project. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on ANI (just before I commented here) - there was no votestacking or meatpuppetry involved. Suggestions that there have been are out of place and if they have influenced the negative reations to this thread then this thread should be closed and restarted with a more honest account of the situation under scrutiny. Now if you want to push that suggestion please do, on ANI, and if you want to suggest that I am involved in meatpuppetry then be clear and direct, so I know what I am defending myself against. The difference between the astrology project members and this is that the project members are more informed and fully aware of the reasons for the information - that background discussion has been omitted here, and replaced by spurious suggestions that something innapropriate lies behind the decision to present this information. What would that be? Deliberate disclosure of relevant, verifiable facts? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Revelant, verifiable facts"? You're joking, right? The template is clearly nothing but cruft Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what “cruft” means; but I can see from the titles of the pages that they are intended to present information concerning astrological beliefs and the principles of those beliefs. Therefore the information is directly relevant and it is reliably referenced, and verifiable - if you think not, please specify why not where the content is being evaluated, so your objection can be understood.

So no, I am not joking. I am one of the few editors who has shown themselves willing to commit to the replacement of garbage content with sourced information that the reader is likely to find interesting and informative. Now other experienced editors with good contribution histories have shown themselves willing to do the same, and it would be a wonderful thing if these attempts to block all contributions to those pages were ended, which might allow that to happen. Why should I need to joke anyway – it’s laughable enough that we have all this squandering of good time and energy, over many threads and discussions, for fear that a few astrological sun sign pages might actually present the arguments as they are understood within the context that they are supposed to be representing (ie., the astrological one). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zac, "sound information" doesn't belong in a template. No information belongs in a template. Templates are one of two things: a) boilerplate notices, or b) lists of links to related articles. This template, even if it had reliably sourced information, should still be deleted as a violation of the general idea of what a template is. I will again say this: You don't use templates as repositories of large amounts of text. You use articles for that. If you think the same portion of text needs to be in multiple articles (and I don't believe this doesn't), you copy and paste the text, or link to another article with the text. You don't use a template for that. And if you are unfamiliar with the term cruft, see WP:CRUFT Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it's very hard not to think the following when seeing this totally non-standard use of a template: Aha! They found a quotation from a leading figure (C.G. Jung) in something which in the general public does not yet have its deserved pseudoscience image, expressing a belief in astrology. Obviously this must be broadcast to the largest number of readers possible. Since every single Zodiac sign article has way more readers than the main astrology article, they found it best to spam it into these 12 articles under a thinly veiled excuse, and the template works as a vehicle for that. Hans Adler 18:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And with this I suspect you reveal what is really jittering nerves here. It’s not the use of the template at all is it? It’s only what the template says. What - give reference to the fact that some persons who are not known for stupidity have contemplated astrological principles and spoken of them without a sense of ridicule? Can’t have that now can we? This is information that must be censored, despite the fact that it succinctly and perfectly explains the difference in concept between the uses made of the tropical and sidereal zodiac. It never crossed my mind that someone would object to this directly relevant quote because it came from Jung, but now I understand much more clearly – the content doesn’t make the subject look imbecilic enough: it presents ‘proper’ astrological information, and some people might even assume that it has occupied serious thought during its thousands of years of philosophical history. Yes, I can see why that would be considered dangerous to the world order of some Wikipedians. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even should your thing happen to be true (which it probably isn't), it doesn't belong in a template. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nobody objects to~~ the quote, or where it comes from, is not why this is being deleted. ~~People object to~~ the template is being deleted because it's in a template that is a completely, utterly, and absolute improper useage of the template space. If you want the quote in an article, put it in an article, don't create a template that is actually a mini-article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I certainly object to the quotation. It is getting way too much weight when presented in this form. This is of course not the right place to discuss this, but I am sure the quotation explains to a large extent why editors on both sides feel so strongly about the template. All that said, even without that quotation the template would still have to be deleted. I am pretty good at separating such things in my mind. The deletion rationale I have given above is precisely why I think this template should be deleted, and the assumption of bad faith that I just described has not been a factor in it. Hans Adler 21:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I now believe that Hans Adler has identified the real issue. Why else would so many editors, who haven't given a damn about the poor quality of these pages in the past, suddenly become so passionately concerned about what appears on those pages now? I'd be interested in establishing what offends the most - that Jung expressed this view or that it is being reported? The quote was included because it succinctly presents the traditional logic behind the astrological use of the tropical zodiac. The content also demonstrates, by its reference to Ptolemy, how old this perspective is. In this context Jung's words are highly relevant and he is useful for identifying this logic with a familiar name. But it's certainly true that Jung had mixed feelings about astrology and was more supportive of some of its philosophical principles than the practice of it.

If the problem is only the use of a template, then - as some have suggested - the content can be easily reproduced without it. But that won't really solve the problem will it? It will only result in more time-wasting if editors are not clear about their cause for concern. Phrases like "I'm not sure what policy this is breaking but it must be breaking one of them" don't help at all. This is why I suggest that there needs to be one central area of discussion to look at the issues honestly and directly. The first question to resolve is whether it’s the use of a template that is being disputed here or the content the template presents. The Wiki astrology project had come to the conclusion that templating the explanation made a lot of sense - partly because this gave the flexibility to easily change the content across all pages if that was deemed necessary. (And that discussion was ongoing, but has now been neglected because of this). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Why else would so many editors...suddenly become so passionately concerned about what appears on those pages now"? Because, thank goodness, it's been brought to the greater community's attention rather than being dealt with in the smoke-filled room that is the project page. Claiming that there is some conspiracy against the astrology people is ludicrous, and claiming so will further erode any credibility you had with the community. Also, why does it matter? If the template is deleted, it's deleted Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It makes a lot of sense to use this template since some kind of explanation of this sort needs to be included on those 12 pages.Minerva20 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find this discussion? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not required to answer that question, for the sake of transparency, I came to this page via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Astrology and previously was on the Aries page. As regards finding it, I've been here before and on other pages making comments and editing. I find it a strange question and I would like to know why you ask it. I haven't been questioned like this on any of the other pages such as computing, internet, where I often visit and sometimes comment. Minerva20 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has made only a handful of contributions to WP; almost all are related to Astrology articles Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect should be provided, not a repeated gigantic mountain of text in every article. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, de-mag hard drives and nuke from orbit (plus salting) Stealth article posing as a template. Re-write drive sectors with 0xDEADBEEF. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art, would you support SALTing it? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did i miss that? Absolutely support salting. Corrected. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy, if there is need to retain the history so that the text can be used properly within an article. Agree with nominator that this is not a proper use for templates. I can't support SALTing, though, until there's some sign of disruptive recreation. If the template is deleted, I'm prepared to trust that the contributors here will not disrupt Wikipedia by ignoring community consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could see that there was something very odd going on here but am not that familiar with templates. I'm not at all surprised that it is a clear breach of the normal use of templates. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire. Or earth. Or perhaps water. This is an inappropriate use of a template, and a grossly POV one at that. Skinwalker (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But not air? Why not air? Now I'm deeply puzzled and confused.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kill with SALT? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean the Strategic Astrology Limitation Treaty? That could work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I'd be fine if Dick Nixon sent a warhead to this template. I'd also be fine if WP:SALT was applied...wouldn't you? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Why should WP:SALT be invoked? As the policy notes, "This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor. " This has not been deleted and recreated. Is there reason to assume that the contributors involved in this would display such bad faith? ---Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it would be very clear to any neutral observer, judging by these childish remarks, that you gentlemen haven't the slightest interest in the scholarly history of astrology -- a concept deeply involved in Western cultural history. The comments are a fair indication of obvious anti-astrology bias. Why is that relevant? A huge number of Wiki readers are in fact interested. Now they can get useful, accurate information or they can get silly trash. OR they can get preached at by a bunch of jumped-up computer programmers with too much time on their hands. I suggest you aim for a bit more objectivity. NaySay (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It was a joke that started with Purplebackpack89 pointing out what was 'missing' in a "Delete, de-mag hard drives and nuke from orbit" !vote. But I think it may have gone a bit stale by now, and maybe we should concentrate on spicier arguments instead. And of course it makes no sense to actually salt a template, given that it would serve the same purpose under any other name. Hans Adler 11:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Useful, accurate information in the proper (article) space is one thing. This template is quite another Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate use of template. --Muhandes (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The template shouldn't be needed, and probably isn't needed. On the other hand, you're dealing with tool using beings with opposable thumbs here. The issue has arisen again and again about the difference between the tropical zodiac, the sidereal zodiac, and the astronomical zodiac as defined by the constellation boundaries set by astronomers. And this has been raised in different ways, by different people, on each of the twelve pages for the signs. Repetitious tasks invite the invention of tools to make them go faster. It probably would be better handled simply by adding more information about astrology rather than less: adding the sidereal dates to the tropical dates in the infobox, as well as a link to the article we ought to have about the corresponding sign in jyotish. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what "see also" sections are; you provide a link that redirects the user to a relevant article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an issue that repeatedly arises with all 12 signs, this indicates to me that it would be (a) worth writing an article about said issue. (b) link from all 12 signs to said article. 109.153.59.93 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles and they are linked, and that was understood by those critical of and those defending the template from the start of the discussion. As suggested above, it would be useful to add sidereal dates to the infobox, with a link there to sidereal astrology. Alternatively we could merge all the relevant articles into astrological sign, an idea that has been floated but not formally proposed yet. I do not think we should have 12 "corresponding" articles for the signs in Indian astrology but that is not a discussion for here. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I raised the idea of merging all the relevant articles (the signs) to a list with the verifiable content [in this template] possibly leading at the top of the list. I was shouted down by members of the astrology project. With additional sight, would those !voting to delete consider that as an option to help strengthen the content of all the pages? --Izno (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WTF? Clearly an abuse. (For transparency, I wound up here because I was on VP:Proposals, where Template:Kopimi was linked to in a discussion, and from there I wound up here since that template is up for deletion as well.) Sven Manguard Wha? 09:15, 4 December 2011 (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:Webgpl 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Webgpl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 03:21, 26 November 2011 (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:Kremlin.ru 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 discussion was weak keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kremlin.ru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 03:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Use is conceivable; would be annoying to have to recreate the template (and locate the relevant authorization letter PDF, OTRS, etc.). --Cybercobra (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that all uses of this template would be hosted on Commons (CC unported).... If such a template (and its accompanying documentation) isn't used on Commons, it should be. --Izno (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The template is in use on Commons {here's one), and since it's a special case license, it should be kept separate on Commons. In light of that, I'd also keep in here (it's not like it's doing any harm), just in case it's ever needed (like if said image winds up on the main page). Sven Manguard Wha? 09:22, 4 December 2011 (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:Kopimi 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kopimi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 03:14, 26 November 2011 (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:JPL Image Copyright 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JPL Image Copyright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 03:14, 26 November 2011 (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:HABS2 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HABS2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 03:12, 26 November 2011 (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:GeoGratis 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GeoGratis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:58, 26 November 2011 (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:ESO 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ESO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (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:CeCILL 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CeCILL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:41, 26 November 2011 (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:CDDL 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CDDL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:41, 26 November 2011 (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:PD-AR-Deputies 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-AR-Deputies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (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:APL 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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:APL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:32, 26 November 2011 (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.