Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 5



Template:Acre to ha

 * 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 Magioladitis (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The template is not used in the main space & is redundant to convert. The redirect,, can go too. J IM ptalk·cont 06:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2009 (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 "indent family" of templates

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)



1 and 2 are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to useless formatting templates which could ... should be replaced with plain text. Here's the so called "indent family" of templates. They do the same as an "Enter" and a couple of s.  Often the result is quite ugly but sometimes it's decent. In these decent cases let's simply use plain text. J IM ptalk·cont 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge if absolutely necessary. These were a present from a user who had an very unique way of creating/using templates. I can't see them being useful to anyone else. (related to this, but don't look too much into it). Rocket000 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: They have cosines. The said user also generously bestowed on us the space family (there's big brother space, little sister sp5 ... etc. etc.). These should also be deleted once they're replaced with text. J IM ptalk·cont 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh there's lots of fun stuff there. If you ever get bored and want to find something to delete just take a stroll through his contribs. It's amazing, that iceberg just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Years later, I still can't get over that someone made the own interwiki system using "macro" templates and built hundreds of templates on every English Wikimedia project to further this purpose... not only were they redundant than actual interwiki links, but they were 1000 times harder to use. Even with the pages and pages of documentation no one could understand it. Creating his own page history system was great too. Rocket000 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Substitute and Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Some could be replaced by variations of nbsp, which is far more transparent in its function. Plastikspork (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2009 (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.

Template:St lb to kg

 * 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 Magioladitis (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The template is not used in the main space & is redundant to convert. J IM ptalk·cont 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. --bender235 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (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.

Template:Mobile Suit Gundam Wing characters

 * 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.

Template (and its redirect, GWCharacters) is redundant due to merger of all linked articles to List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing characters. The template is only used on Mobile Suit Gundam Wing. G.A.S talk 16:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no longer useful. (As an aside, the merge target needs some a-link targets, so the merged character names be redirected to the entry in the list, like the do in the List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing mobile weapons one.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The anchors already exits, the redirects just need to be update. --Farix (Talk) 18:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, too few articles to justify a navbox. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No longer needed. --Farix (Talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge done so no longer useful & needed. --KrebMarkt 06:46, 6 August 2009 (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.

Template:Mobile Suit Gundam Wing mobile units

 * 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.

Template is redundant due to merger of all linked articles to List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing mobile weapons. The template is no longer in use. G.A.S talk 16:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no longer useful. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, too few articles to justify a navbox. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No longer needed. --Farix (Talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Time to scuttle the old ship. No more use for it. --KrebMarkt 06:44, 6 August 2009 (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.

Template:TTW seasons

 * 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 all.

Orphan, unused, replaced with standard episode infoboxes. We also have a list of episodes. Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2009 (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.

Template:John Petrucci

 * 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.

Only six articles are linked to this template, most of them are quite redundant. Not necessary until more CDs are released. Victão Lopes I hear you... 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2009 (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.

Template:Non-free copyright holder

 * 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 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a terrible license tag. Besides only being used on one image it just doesn't make sense. The use can't be fair use if the copyright holder premits educational and non-commercial use since Wikipedia is both of those. When you have permission, the usage, by definition, isn't fair use. It's permitted use by the rights holder not the government. Besides, fair use is about usage, and saying it's "marked fair use" because "the copyright holder publicly states that it gives permission to use the image for educational and non-commercial purposes" is just wrong. (and the copyright holder's an "it"?) We shouldn't be cofusing and misleading the common user even more on copyrights then they already are.

I didn't look into why this is used for that one image, but there may be a replace tag for that. However, in general, there's no need for this since the first rule of WP:FU for allow non-free media is "Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law...". Rocket000 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Non-free with NC. Wikimedia policies however, require that anything that isn't free content be treated as copyrighted content even if non-commercial/non-derivative permission is given.  ViperSnake151   Talk  22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, free content is copyrighted too (except for PD). Fair use legally means something. You can't say you're using it under "fair use" if you have permission. That is the opposite of fair use. See, this is why people don't understand real-world copyright law, because we're completely misleading them with stuff like this. Rocket000 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2009 (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.