Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 3



Template:Window

 * 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 deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unused, (nothing more to say, but just to fill an empty space, a totally unnecissary template) → A z a  Toth 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were ever used, I'd say keep, but it's not, so there's no reason to keep it. LittleDan talk 19:25, 9 October 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.

Template:Hong_Kong_quick_links

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a template currently being used on multiple Hong Kong related articles. However, the template clearly states that it's intended for "wikipedians [sic]" (i.e. editors, not readers), and the links are primarily to Wikipedia namespace pages promoting editing of those articles. Templates placed on articles (as this template is) should not have meta-content on them; the template should not refer to Wikipedia and the WikiProjects behind it. Templates designed for that purpose and placed in the article/main namespace should be deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Boldly check-talked per WP:ASR. --ais523 09:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, but I still feel that the template should be deleted. It's still not appropriate for article talk pages. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with if WikiProject Hong Kong wants it. Otherwise I will change my vote to delete. --Iamunknown 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't appear that anyone will claim it. --Iamunknown 18:22, 7 October 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.

Template:Selected CVG

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Intergrated itno cvgproj and all transcluded uses have been removed. Orphaned template, in essence. Hbdragon88 04:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 02:02, 10 October 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.

Template:Love Eddie

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unused self-aggrandizing template created by an indefinitely blocked user. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to look at the edit history, you will see I created the template, long before Eddie was blocked. I am not indefinitely blocked! — G a ry Kirk // talk! 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedily and strongly delete both template and Image:EddieSegoura.JPG &mdash; there's no point having a userbox (yes, I'm aware that there's technically no box around this template) that's used by exactly one user now that professes love for a banned user. Burn the image as well (it's only used on two user pages, one of which is the userbox, anyhow) - the user is banned, and there's absolutely no reason for it to be around. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete template per WP:DENY (essay, not policy). Creation was probably in good faith, but it's unwise to support a user permablocked or banned for vandalism. The image can't be deleted here, try WP:IFD. --ais523 16:28, 5 October 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.

Template:Charmed Navigation Box

 * 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 deletion as redundant. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

An existing template already exists at Charmed which is better looking anyway. The way this box is divided up means that it implies some recurring characters are not part of the "Warren Line" etc... it's just needlessly complicated. If indeed it is deemed a better template, then it should still be deleted and have its code imprinted over Charmed anyway so that there are not two. :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep with Modification - I very much like the formatting of this box, and really only see the need to remove the Warren witches line, and change "Close friends" to "Friends and Family" and direct that link to the article page rather than a subsection thereof. Agree with imprinting this box over Charmed. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 09:55, 7 October 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.

Template:StrategyWiki

 * 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 '''Keep. Original concerns have been fixed. No delete votes - nominator withdraws.'''. HyperMaaaannnnnnnn 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)



These type templates are only used for WikiMedia projects, not third party projects. Not even wikia projects get links like this. HyperMaaaannnnnnnn 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw Category:Wikia templates classed under Category:Interwiki link templates and assumed they were the same type. Can I switch it to something like Template:Doomwiki. -- Prod-You 04:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is definitly more appropriate then a box, on that note I'm changing my votes. Chris M. 04:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, i changed it up a bit. I'm using it in two ways on the MapleStory page. One in external links, one in specific sections (probably gonna get rid of one or two of those links later since it seems like overkill). Good enough to keep? -- Prod-You 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep/Modify - The creator mentioned it at strategywiki and I mentioned some policies about wikipedia during the discussion and I agree with this deletion. Chris M. 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep modified version. The current version is fine; it's templates looking like that are the problem. --ais523 10:15, 4 October 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.