Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 3



Template:Dts-simple

 * 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated template no longer being used. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:16, 3 September 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:Nene Valley Railway

 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Old railway map template with no article links replaced by more complete version - Template:Nene Valley Railway map. Scillystuff (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless RDT. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:15, 3 September 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:Victoria politics

 * 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Government of Victoria. Miracle Pen (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't it be Template:Government of Victoria (Australia) and Template:Victoria (Australia) politics ? The article is at Victoria (Australia). 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 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:IPsockProven

 * 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) 04:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)



Duplicate of IPsock. Unneeded. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is it not valuable to differentiate between a case where we only suspect sockpuppetry vs. one that's confirmed with proof?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think his point is that

serves the same purpose as. Miracle Pen (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Ipsock is actually better here, because it links to the SPI page, while the above does not.  Let me also state that the above was created by an now indef'd sock.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The two templates are not exact duplicates, but they are redundant, and IPsock is the better and more widely used. It is hard to say for sure whether IPsockProven is used at all, since it would be substituted. However, all the recent instances I found of IP socking templates were of, so I believe it is safe to delete the nominated template. --RL0919 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 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:Presiding Officers in Australian Parliaments

 * 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Presiding officers of Australian legislatures. The former seems to be a cut and paste move of the latter. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:54, 3 September 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:Infobox datespan

 * 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. Airplaneman  ✈  13:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This template is only used on 2 articles. Also it just duplicates text in the article. Snappy (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life  talk  15:31, 7 September 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.

Football (soccer) NT squad 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. Airplaneman  ✈  13:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Roster templates are only needed for FIFA championships and Confederation championships. -— Lomocompact talk 10:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Lomocompact (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Consensus is that such templates are only for the finals of FIFA and Confederation championships. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life  talk  15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the Asian Games is not a Confederation championship, so these navboxes are unnecessary. Jogurney (talk) 15:35, 7 September 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.