Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 27
July 27
[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 WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Not useful navbox Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - clear violation of WP:NOTDIR point 5. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - not a sufficiently distinguishing feature to justify a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Status (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The purpose of this template is to indicate whether a page is protected or unprotected. If a page is not protected, there is no reason to make any mention of its status as such, since almost all pages are unprotected by default. If a page is protected, then any one of the templates in Category:Protection templates is more informative than the notice given by this template. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. As I see only one page uses this template and nominator's rationale covers me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator. --Friejose (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant to existing protection images, and pointing out that an article is unprotected is a bad idea. Terraxos (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Treatybox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template is redundant to another better-designed template, Template:Infobox Treaty. After editing the remaining articles with the old treatybox template to the new infobox treaty template, there are now no articles that use this template anymore. Submitted for your deletion, Allstar86 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant.--Lenticel (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator. --Friejose (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep as currently deprecated, or as a link to new template, in order to preserve edit history, and to help editors searching for correct template. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)- Delete - not convinced by the reasons for keeping given by Rogerb above. There's no useful edit history worth keeping, and I don't see how keeping this helps editors find the current template. It should be deleted as obsolete. Terraxos (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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.