Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30

Template:Ko

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be both deprecated and currently unused. {{Lang}} does the job far more efficiently anyway. — Grutness...wha? 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree; delete, per nomination. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. —dima /talk/ 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deprecated and unused. --Phoenix (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above Booksworm Talk to me! 15:55, 1 May 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:PD-WWII-in-Color

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another template that currently acts as an image copyright tag but is not qualified to do so; indeed, the first paragraph of http://www.ww2incolor.com/site-faq.html indicates that, "Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners (....) (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions)" (see the URL for the rest of the paragraph). Well, unfortunately we are distributing and copying them and, by labeling and categorising them as "public domain", indicating that they are free to use for commercial reuse and derivative works. They are clearly not, and this is clearly a non-license. I thus recommend that the template be deleted and that a small bit of text indicating the source (ww2incolor.com) and a dated {{no license}} tag is placed in the former template. --Iamunknown 21:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as PD-USGov-NARA. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really serving a purpose at this time, as well as per nomination. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - somewhat superfluous; as per nom as well. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting, was created in 2005. --Phoenix (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WWII in Color seems to have gotten less selective in the copyright department over the years. --Carnildo 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Many images can be attributed to Military Personnel and so on Booksworm Talk to me! 15:56, 1 May 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:PD-USGov-NARA

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 Retag then delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all NARA images are public domain. Images tagged with this should be marked with {{NARA-image}} and given an appropriate license tag. See also Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Iamunknown 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "vast majority" language is not acceptable for sourcing. Gavia immer (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded and unnecessary. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per commons-del-req. Alex Spade 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We shouldn't confuse source with license tags, especially when there is not a 1:1 correlation. - cohesion 23:26, 5 May 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:NHLteamabbr

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, with the nominator implicitly withdrawing by declaring a keep vote. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useless template. There is no need for this, and I have yet to see it in practical use. — JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I have found much more use for this template. I would even now vote for a keep myself. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as template creator. It is used as an index for the series of articles listing NHL player names. i.e.: List of NHL players: A. Allows someone to easily understand what each team abbreviation is. Resolute 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful in player lists. -- JamesTeterenko 14:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Used for player lists to clarify teams. --Djsasso 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It helps less familiar readers. GoodDay 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Resolute's reasons above. --Pparazorback 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yet to see it in practical use? One would think checking "What links here" would be a good stop before nominating a template for deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, it was only linked to three of the player articles when he nominated it. I subsequently added the template to the other four articles that I have converted to chart form afterward. Resolute 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the fairness. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, shucks. My apologies. I see that now by looking at the histories, thanks. --Phoenix (talk) 03:42, 1 May 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:New Jersey Devils current roster

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is already in use with {{New Jersey Devils Roster}}, and the latter follows the usual format. — JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 08:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Resolute 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Djsasso 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoodDay 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pparazorback 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to other template. —dima /talk/ 21:21, 30 April 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:The Wotch

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one article; the two other links in the template now redirect back to that article. Sean Curtin 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need for a template for one article, per nominator. Theredhouse7 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. –Pomte 05:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. - hmwith talk 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 08:49, 30 April 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:LittleEinsteinsEpisodes

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the links to individual episodes have been redirected back to the main list. — HokieRNB 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a useful template anymore. Also delete redirects. HokieRNB 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete navigational template, sans navigation. Gracenotes^T § 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. --Phoenix (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I am not a fan of a template that is just full of redirects. I hate 'em! JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "my god, it's full of redirects!" Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:08, 1 May 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.