Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 2
May 2
[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) 01:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Tfd log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No longer used, Zorglbot uses other coding, thus keeping this might lead to inconsistencies if someone uses it when the bot is gone. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree nominator's reasoning. No longer needed and may cause confusion. Airplaneman ✈ 05:21, 9 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Log chrono (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Once an AfD template, Mathbot no longer uses it, so it should be deleted to make sure no inconsistencies happen in the AfD layout should Mathbot ever stop working. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I again agree nominator's reasoning. No longer needed and may cause confusion. Airplaneman ✈ 05:21, 9 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned/ unused, complete text is "Chemical name ?"EmanWilm (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Definitely.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - template with no useful content. Airplaneman ✈ 05:22, 9 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused, template loop. Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC). 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete - orphaned. I think I understand the concept of a template loop - a template transcluded onto itself, correct? If so, Strong delete per nom. Airplaneman ✈ 05:26, 9 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Campaignbox Turkish–Portuguese War (1509) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Moving here for User:Kimdime. PROD tag was applied to template, reason given was "per http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish–Portuguese_War_(1509)&oldid=359197623 there was no turkish portuguese war in 1509". Template is orphaned. — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as one of many navigational templates that don't actually navigate, as well as being orphaned. No conceivable reason for keeping this. - Mobius Clock 18:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - orphaned, serves no useful navigational purpose. Airplaneman ✈ 05:27, 9 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Stalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused template. Not sure if was intended to be a prototype for a reporting system, or not, but has not been touched in years and is unused anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused (except in relation to this discussion) and probably unusable as reports of harassment should go to OTRS or Arbcom anyway. - Mobius Clock 18:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Offer Usification this is a "not yet needs a navbox" band. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC).
- There's an implication of bad faith in the concept, and the lack of an actual process for "reporting wikistalking" which would actually necessitate it, along with it having been unused and unedited by anyone including the author in nearly three years, means that I don't see any value in this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - orphaned. There are better ways of handling the situation(s) that this template is intended for, as well. Airplaneman ✈ 05:28, 9 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Timoteij (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Remove the red-links and there's not enough links left to justify a template. MrStalker (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - superfluous navbox, unused in mainspace, no need to keep it around. - Mobius Clock 18:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - unneeded and orphaned. Better taken care of with a "see also" section. Airplaneman ✈ 05:30, 9 May 2010 (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.