Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 19



June 19, 2006

 * 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 -- Drini 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Villiannothero
Used with the tfd nomination Supervillianbox. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't contribute anything to an article if it is used. EVula 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Coredesat 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, totally stupid even if the Supervillainbox was kept. Grand  master  ka  19:48, 25 June 2006 (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 page.


 * 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 redirect -- Drini 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Supervillianbox
Seemingly identical to Template:Superherobox.. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Superherobox doesn't have any inherent bias between hero or villain in anything other than the name. Hence, it is redundant. EVula 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Superherobox.--M @ r ē ino 17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to superherobox. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Superherobox per everyone. Grand  master  ka  19:47, 25 June 2006 (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 page.


 * 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 '''Replace with GFDL and then create redirect. License issues are important, we should not try to make them go unnoticed-- Drini 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Note if you dislike the ñu cartoon, then use GFDL-nologo -- Drini 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-small
I fail to see any reason to have two templates for the same license: GFDL. I think images which use this template should be migrated to the regular template. (there are less than 200 images which use the "small" template) bogdan 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This template is stupid; look at the talk page. It was originally created because a single particularly stubborn user (Mfc) doesn't like having a big license box on his images' description pages. Things get confusing when you have more than one template for a single purpose. ~MDD4696 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion that led to this template's creation is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mfc&oldid=6163418. ~MDD4696 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but deprecate, no reason to use a smaller message for no reason. --Rory096 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just realized what I just said, I need sleep. --Rory096 07:10, 23 June 2006 (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 page.


 * 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 and subst Will (message me!) 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All templates created by
These templates are all orphaned except for their creator and the user page of a non-existent user (which has been deleted). Their links are nothing but red links and links to protected deleted pages. I recommend nuking them all. Editor88 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all - Useless and unencyclopedic templates. Afonso Silva 18:44, 19 June 2006 (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 page.


 * 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 REDIRECT as nominated

Template:Talk Archive
Orphaned template is redundant with the much more widely used. ~MDD4696 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Redirect to Talkarchive --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This template is orphaned, and it is not documented anywhere. There's no point in creating a redirect. People should never use this template, and if it is a redirect, they might. ~MDD4696 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. I'm sick of these useless redirects. If a template is unused, just delete it. CG 15:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Talkarchive. Template redirects are very, very useful sometimes so I can find what I need. I've made a lot of them after it has sometimes taken me five tries or some investigation to find the correct template. Redirects are very cheap, and helpful. Grand  master  ka  19:45, 25 June 2006 (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 page.


 * 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 speedy keep per advice from legal counsel. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sxc-warning
According to the policy on the commons Commons:Commons:Stock.xchng images, this template is wrong. (see also the discussion and vote: Commons:Commons:Stock.xchng_images/vote bogdan 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is going to take far more than just deleting the template to fix. Each of the 999 pages that have this template need to have their copyright information changed.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t ) 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:The prior legal opinion of the foundation was that we can not ignore the inappropriate license agreement of the website. It's clear from reading the forums on the site that a non-trivial folks there believe that their TOC limits the user of the work and that it's not just ignored as the argument was made on commons. We've also had takedown notices sent to us by SXC users. Thus our vote to ignore the SXC license is exactly equal to some other site holding a vote to decide to ignore the GFDL on Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure why the notices were removed after the fact on commons, but I'm going to find out. Can we please hold off on this vote until after I've had a chance to discuss this with our legal council? If there has been some change with indeed makes these images public domain, I'll gladly remove the notices from the images and ask for the template to be deleted. Deleting the template prior to that may just put us in a situation where it must be recreated and reapplied...--Gmaxwell 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. After all images which use this template are replaced with a proper one then propose for deletion again. --WinHunter (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2006 (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 page.


 * 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 -- Drini 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:ESCW00
Replaced with the more complete template. Andromeda 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t ) 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Wisd e n17 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused template --WinHunter (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2006 (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 page.


 * 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 -- Drini 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Thelema Book
The template is redundant to another better-designed template; in this case. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t ) 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Wisd e n17 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant. feydey 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. EVula 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --WinHunter (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2006 (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 page.