Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 31



Template:@1632

 * 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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



another inappropriate 1632 template; just type the words ;) orphaned, delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 31 July 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:Cite GG03

 * 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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)



another inappropriate 1632 template; cite book, anyone? delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and due to lack of use in article space. Plastikspork (talk) 00:08, 4 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:Cite 34TRR

 * 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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



another inappropriate 1632 template; cite book, anyone? delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:36, 31 July 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:Cite 34TBW

 * 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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)



another inappropriate 1632 template; cite book, anyone? delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * delete per nom and due to lack of use in article space. Plastikspork (talk) 00:09, 4 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:Cite 1632

 * 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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)



another inappropriate 1632 template; cite book, anyone? delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:33, 31 July 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:Scripps College majors

 * 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) 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)



In appropriate use of template space and navbox does not conform with WP:NAV and WP:CLN. Navbox only used on one article and is inappropriate form for a list of college majors. Should be a list in the article if used at all (and unless a major is particularly unique or notable, it probably shoudn't be in the article anyway). Masonpatriot (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination. This is not what navboxes in particular or templates in general are for.  Noteworthy majors (or interesting details regarding them) can just be described in prose. Superm401 - Talk 21:49, 31 July 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:Hurricane disambig

 * 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 marked historical. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)



Deprecated disambiguation template, not transcluded anywhere. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it's used on thousands of pages—it's just been subst'd historically. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought it was anyway... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think we have to delete it or leave it as historic? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 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.