Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 14

< April 13	April 15 >

April 14, 2006

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagra shtak 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Delhi infobox

Obvious delete John Reid 02:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redunant. --Andy123(talk) 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need Deizio 11:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Awayuser

Keep. On Wikipedia:Wikiholiday, there are some other variations on the standard Wikibreak template. I've standardized the style of this template, to match the other wikibreak templates. Seeing the other variations, I see no reason why we can't have this one. The only issue with this one is that vacation is an American term, while in other places, holiday is used. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's been revised, I'll vote keep, even though I nominated it for TfD. --Osbus 17:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being on holiday is different to a Wiki-break or being partially active. Deizio 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add to Wikipedia:Wikiholiday. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Template:Spambot and Template:Spambot notalk

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Also, as per the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive6#Continuing spambot attacks, these templates were created in February 2005, and were only used as a temporary way to track the pages protected against a spambot. This procedure is now obsolete and unused due to the current protection and semi-protection policies. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two templates are redundant with any of several vandalism-related templates listed below, depending on circumstances. A spambot is just a vandal using a tool, and doesn't require a unique template. See also the associated category Protected against spambots.

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete needless redundancy. John Reid 02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also delete Category:Protected against spambots. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.