Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

Template:Aspell

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probably to be used in articles, where such would be inappropriate. Unused and useless. Happy‑melon 17:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant, useless. Don't we already have talk page templates that say the same? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, there are talk page ones that indicate that it is primarily in British English. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one who has seen spelling wars in article histories, I would suggest that deleting this template does not actually improve anything. Collect (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As one who has seen spelling wars in article histories, I would suggest that this template does not actually improve anything. Rather, it is likely to piss off most of both sides in the dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant Hogvillian (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (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.