Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 17
November 17
[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Template:NRHP-PD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template was set up with erroneous belief that NRHP application documents are public domain, but they are not public domain. Basically there is no such thing as NRHP public domain material. There does exist a Federal government employee PD tag or a National Park Service PD template which applies for small fraction of NRHP applications prepared by Federal employees. No need for this one, not transcluded anywhere; bad to have in existence. Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Template:NRHP-PD and NRHP PD material and previously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 41#Public Domain Template?. --doncram (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Doncram's statement is in line with consensus at WT:NRHP - the template in any case has very, very limited potential use, and the template's author recognized this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 41#Public Domain Template? It should have been deleted back then. Smallbones (talk) 20:31, 17 November 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality: population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality: province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Do for every Dutch municipality/alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality for use with ExpandTemplates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Table row Dutch municipality (simple) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Do for every Dutch municipality/short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Conditional table row Dutch municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Xpdt1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Population Dutch municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Munnlnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned templates that have not been significantly edited since 2008, so I am guessing that it is part of an abandoned project. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Add-desc-I-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphan, Bitey, Situation adequately handled by FFD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:15, 17 November 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of any common reason to issue an "only warning" for removing a deletion template the first time. mechamind90 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Depends on what they wrote in the edit summary... No in all seriousness, I created this one as part of the set, I doubt if it's useful. I have no problem in its deletion. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:38, 17 November 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.