Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23, 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 no consensus, kept Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indiancopyright

Delete. Another "all rights reserved" copyright template. --Carnildo 22:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. You don't need to be too specific with copyrights. --Domthedude001 01:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The images belonging to Press Trust of India or other Indian domains, e.g. Image:Rastrapati ke angarakshak.jpg, have reserved rights. --Victor.P.Das 09:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some images have reserved rights and to refer that we need this. - Vaikunda Raja 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some images have reserved rights. Those images are generally not usable on Wikipedia and need to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Carnildo 06:10, 28 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 speedy redirected by User:Constantine Evans. Circeus 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User United Kingdom resident

Template:User United Kingdom resident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This userbox was created to provide a temporary solution to a problem that has since been solved. That has basically made this userbox extraneous. Mal 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from AfD Morgan Wick 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what's the problem? Redirect to {{User United Kingdom}}. --Domthedude001 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect --Misza 13 ^{T C} 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - and I just did. Is this an acceptable solution Setanta747? If so, you might consider delisting this.--Constantine Evans 19:28, 25 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 Speedy deleted/salted per CSD:G4. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncyclopedia

Template:Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Successfully nominated for deletion multiple times in the past. For some reason it keeps getting re-created, this is the 4th time. Prior discussions here, here. Stbalbach 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the many reasons given in the July 2005 deletion (and protect the page to prevent more recreations. JoshuaZ 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom and above. --Domthedude001 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I Don't like Deleting Anything M:Inclusionism and I like the template but I understand why it needs to be deleted. Is it ok to have it not as a template but still on Flying Spaghetti Monster and other especially silly pages.--E-Bod 02:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: why is this even listed here? --Constantine Evans 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. What Constantine said. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and others delete comments above. --FloNight ^talk 02:48, 27 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 delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newinfobox Digimon

Template:Newinfobox Digimon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Originally created by User:Plau as a fork of {{Infoboxneeded}}, then subsequently used by myself as a sandbox to convert {{Infobox Digimon}} to conditionals. Can now use deletion. Circeus 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did some improvements on Template:Infobox Digimon today. --Ligulem 11:59, 28 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 delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Technical2

Template:Technical2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is a near copy of the {{technical}} template. Does not add anything which couldn't be dealt with on the talk page of an article. AlyM 10:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 02:01, 24 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 Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utverylong

Template:Utverylong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not the most helpful template. The appropriate length for a user talk page (the intended recipient of this template) is for that particular user to decide; if you feel strongly enough about it, leave a message, not a template. If it's any other talk page, archive it yourself. Delete. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Domthedude001 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing wrong with having it. I find it useful. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful. TheJabberwʘck 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why the two of you have called it useful, yet there are no links to it, either direct or via subst. Who exactly is this useful to? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it is not currently in use is not an adequate reason to delete. Nothing should be removed unless it is broken, wrong or harmful. --Blainster 07:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the other reasons I listed above. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— nath a nrd o tcom ^{(T • C • W)} 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it links to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page which is good for newbies to learn. I put it on User talk:68.39.174.238. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a user has been around long enough and got enough talk to need one of these, perhaps you should leave them a personal message yourself? I'm getting sick of all this template-talk, and if I got this message would consider it and its bolded "Important" rather rude. the wub "?!" 22:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. It's quite appropriate and useful. Ardenn 00:08, 29 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 delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manifold

Template:Manifold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template has been made redundant by a new template (Template:Baxter) and is therefore no longer needed. Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 16:50, 23 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 delete Circeus 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HealthDisclaimer

Keep and change/delete the guidelines. See the reasons at Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer/Reasons. ackoz 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disclaimers in specific articles increase Wikipedia's liability: if some articles have disclaimers, then any article that does not have a disclaimer can be assumed by the reader to not need one. And to make matters worse, articles without disclaimers are also the ones more likely to get the reader in trouble -- if someone's gone to the effort of adding a disclaimer to an article, they've probably also gone to the effort of making sure the article is reasonably accurate. --Carnildo 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO read the reasons I have listed before you reply. Your reasoning is a classic example of ignorance, because I suggested that: 1. All articles (not just some) should have a VISIBLE disclaimer (special for medical cases) and 2. the main concern are the articles which are in constant edit war and changed to non-VS R frequently. You are actually discussing nonexistent arguments. ackoz

22:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your reasons. I'm rather less than impressed by them. What's the appropriate disclaimer for M1 Abrams? Or Vernon-Dunlap School? How about George W. Bush, 1203, or J2000.0? --Carnildo 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is Wikipedia:General disclaimer.Geni 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see responce to Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer#Reasons.Geni 22:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK As long as there is another chance to get the disclaimers from down there. ackoz 22:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per no disclaimer policy. --InShaneee 23:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons at Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates guidelines. Primarily the reason stated here: The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits. FloNight ^talk 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. (If a disclaimer is necessary, then Wikipedia:General disclaimer should be linked on all pages.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is, in the footer. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is what the General Disclaimer is for. We do a pretty good job of keeping crackpots out, in my opinion, and if someone adds biased information about their profession, what keeps them from changing the disclaimer too? --Constantine Evans 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The disclaimer pages are long-term protected. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "No disclaimer" policy someone already mentioned. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No disclaimers. Kaldari 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. the wub "?!" 22:48, 27 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.