Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 18



Template:Persiraja Banda Aceh

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Persiraja Banda Aceh

Authors used template for grouping unrelated articles, however once they have been removed there are just two relevant pages. These two articles do not need a navbox. Cloudz 679 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (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:Balaghat Railway Junction

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Balaghat Railway Junction

This is an article, not a template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently a misguided user creation. Brad (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy as duplicate of Balaghat Junction. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 19 February 2012 (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:Boya naidu

 * 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. The db tagger called it a test page. I would call it vandalism. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Boya naidu

This is an article not a template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently a misguided user creation. Brad (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. Possible copy-vio. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 19 February 2012 (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:Box portal skeleton boya / boyar / gangawaru

 * 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Box portal skeleton boya / boyar / gangawaru

This is an an article not a template! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently a misguided user creation. Brad (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. Possible copy-vio.


 * 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:G-??

 * 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. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 01:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * G-g
 * G-so
 * G-s
 * G-rn
 * G-mo
 * G-lm

Set of unused link templates WOSlinker (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2012 (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:Full demo

 * 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; deleted as G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Full demo

No longer appears to be in use. WOSlinker (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom; unused template.  Gongshow  Talk 07:07, 21 February 2012 (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:Web-cite

 * 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; deleted as G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  11:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Web-cite

Deprecated for four years, used only on three user subpages— copies of Buddhism that have not been edited for years -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:01, 18 February 2012 (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:Hollowpoints

 * 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; deleted as G8 by AnomieBOT ⚡  15:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hollowpoints

Just red links. WOSlinker (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (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:User cc-by-nc-sa

 * 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User cc-by-nc-sa

NC Clause is not compatible with Wikipedia terms. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to speedy deletion template would be the better outcome. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Template states "This user's contributions are dual licensed under Wikipedia's copyright terms and Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0" so the grant of licence is compatible. However, at present I can't see why this dual licensing is useful. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You either release a right or you don't. The template is license-confused. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused Bulwersator (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The template says that the contributions are multi-licensed. → Σ  τ  c . 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. We can't accept works under BY-NC, so we can't use those terms. It may be that other authors of images want to dual-license their works under both CC-BY-SA (for us) and commercial terms (for commercial parties): however, as we cannot use the latter, we need not include it here. Lastly, there is no reason that anyone would choose to use the work under BY-NC when the other license exists as it is by definition a less free license. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, misrepresents policy and contradicts itself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:04, 24 February 2012 (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:Charles Finch

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Charles Finch

Shoud be an article if notable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2012 (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.