Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 2



Template:Reqbreedphoto

 * 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) 20:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)



Pursuant to an earlier discussion on the template talk page, has been replaced with. is now redundant and can be deleted. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:55, 2 October 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.

Template:Kamelot

 * 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 keep. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This group isn't notable enough for an infobox. Under the only famous for one thing rule, I don't think any members of the band justify their own article, and I doubt any of their albums do either. This leaves nothing left of this template. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep & close. Plenty of articles here to justify the navbox. If you don't think the band is notable then take these articles to AfD. PC78 (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be enough links on and transculasions of the navbox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:55, 3 October 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.

Template:Blankcsd-warn

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume that this template is not used by anyone, since it contains an egregious text error ("...because it is a blank article providing no content to the in the current revision and past revisions would have been candidates for speedy deletion...") which would have been noticed and corrected if anyone was using it. I am trying to update the speedy-deletion-notice templates, and there are many, and the existence of unused ones such as this one are a nuisance. (The whole category needs to be cleaned up and rationalized but that's for another day). Herostratus (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose this is supposed to be for nocontent-warn under db-blank ? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess. Category:CSD warning templates is a bit messy, so it's hard to tell what is going on. Perhaps this is some user's fork of that or something, but I'm assuming its an artifact. It was last edited in 2009. Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 4 October 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.