Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 23

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 Seriously. It has it uses. ^(TINC) -- Drini 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sprotect-banneduser

Template:Sprotect-banneduser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Preventing edits by sockpuppets is not one of the proper uses of semi-protection as given on

• Sure, why not. Delete. Freddie _Message? 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ADNghiem501 07:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to {{
  sprotect}}, as redundant; but the argument of the nom is wrong. Editing by sockpuppets is treated as vandalism; and vandalism by new accounts, including new sockpuppets, is one of the chief purposes of sprotection. Septentrionalis 20:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Redirecting to that link can cause double redirect, you'd rather say redirect to
    Template:Sprotected. -- ADNghiem501 00:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: The template says: This article is currently semi-protected to prevent sockpuppets of banned users from editing it. The purpose of sprotection is not to prevent sockpuppets from editing an article; the purpose is to deal with cases of serious vandalism to an article. Vandalism will either be handled by the sockpuppet rules already in place or by the semi-protection rules already in place - we don't need a separate template for sockpuppet vandalism. - Brian Kendig 02:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I agree. Any sockpuppet with account used in more than four days can edit semi-protected articles. It's more likely a problem. -- ADNghiem501 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry; It has to do with
  banned users. And I quote: "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.". It's use is specifically for pages out of the mainspace as a additional measure, and it is mostly used in cases where a template such as {{newvoter}} would apply. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete needless and useless 128.101.253.89 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: IP's first edit. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Sprotected. - brenneman ^{L} 07:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since the banned user's main account is, ah, blocked indefinitely, then any edit by that user is by definition via a sockpuppet. I'm not sure what's hard about this. Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Amorrow, Lir, Rgulerdem, Wik, the Bogdanov brothers, Lightbringer, DickyRobert, etc., they all have their favorite pages which they continue to edit whenever they get the chance. It's important that the reason be made clear in these cases. I would even recommend a separate category for such pages. The problem we have is people who (acting in the best of faith, of course) don't know the story behind the pages that they are unprotecting, and will say, "oh, that's not vandalism... why did you rollback? why did you block? why did you protect the page?" — Jul. 3, '06 [15:53] <freak|talk>
• Speedy keep: this is not the same as {{
  sprotected}}, and cannot be implemented in terms of a meta-template invocation of that template either. Given that semi-protection has come to the attention of more people recently, it is necessary to make certain that the reason for applying it to any given article is explained as clearly and unambiguously as possible. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep per freakofnurture and Mackensen. FloNight ^talk 16:08, 3 July 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 These kinds of things should be done directly, and using a template only makes diffucult handling of category (hides it at the edit dialog, confuses bots, etc)-- Drini 17:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yp

Template:Yp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Is there really a need for a template that simply puts articles into a category? It could easily be subst in a few minutes. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CG 09:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So make it subst-only like {{
  afd}}. I'm not sure the cat is useful, especially since most of these look like fair-use; but that's for CfD; and even so it will shorten the cat typing considerably. Septentrionalis 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Coffee 15:40, 1 July 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 duplicated functionality-- Drini 18:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Heritage Sites in Scotland

Template:World Heritage Sites in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicates Template:World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom, and its use hides the other UK sites for navigation within Scotland. Astrotrain 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant —
  ra 01:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Nomination obscure. --Mais oui! 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant. Craigy (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — although if the Scotland template were not already a subset of the UK one (in terms of content), then I'd vote for a merge. Either way, there aren't so many entries as to make the UK template unweildy, and having all the UK sites together may help people who are visiting or researching them. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete UNESCO lists them under UK, and so should we. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary duplication.
  Lancsalot 10:45, 3 July 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 -- Drini 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Official_name_=_Munster_High_School

Template:Official_name_=_Munster_High_School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, improperly makes use of a city template for a high school. harpchad 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just someone's incomplete experiment in template space.
  masterka 20:06, 25 June 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 -- Drini 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free to use

Template:Free to use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I really don't understand what this template is for. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose (but I might be missing something obvious, I don't know). It's also plain text so doesn't really need template space. I say delete, but if I am missing a really obvious use for this template, someone please tell me ;) —

• Delete I think it's used to say that the images are not linked to any other pages (i.e. ready for deletion). Delete as you can tell if a image, article, etc is linked to a page by clicking on 'What links here'. - Nick C 19:48, 23 June 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 redirect listed in wrong discussion, also duplicate listing on June 24, and not speediable (many months old). --William Allen Simpson 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wales place with map

Template:Infobox Wales place with map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Orphaned template. All links have been redirected after the inclusion of an optional map in the main {{

• Speedy delete per nom, and template has been blanked. - Nick C 19:49, 23 June 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 superseeded -- Drini 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crash frame

Template:Crash frame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was formally used in conjunction with {{

• Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:50, 23 June 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 superseeded -- Drini 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crash image

Template:Crash image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was formally used in conjunction with {{

• Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:49, 23 June 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 superseeded -- Drini 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crash title

Template:Crash title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was formally used in conjunction with {{

• Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:51, 23 June 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 superseeded -- Drini 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aircraft title

Template:Aircraft title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was formally used in conjunction with {{

• Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:51, 23 June 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 -- Drini 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Shinigan Down

Template:User Shinigan Down (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. The article for this hoax tv show was deleted five times before its re-creation was blocked. We don't need more of this nonsense. - EurekaLott 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and Delete per nom. —
  ra 04:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Subst and delete per nom. --Coredesat 12:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing to subst (unused template); delete per nom. TheProject 02:56, 24 June 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 Userfy --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User AAAA

Template:User AAAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAA! AAAA, AAA! ... Seriously, could this qualify under "patent nonsense"? TheProject 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - shouldn't be a template, but I'd love to have it in my userspace. —
  (TALK) 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - a humorous reference to Uncyclopedia though the amount of letters need fixing. I'd love to have it on my userpage too. Freddie _Message? 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Migrate to Userspace using
  WP:GUS. CharonX/talk 12:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete for patent nonsense. Using
  WP:GUS on this makes no sense, as there's nothing worth saving. --Coredesat 12:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I created it, and it's just a harmless silly userbox. You don't have to have it on your userspace, you know. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to
  WP:TGS. If you do it now, it'll save everyone's time. DJR (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Done. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]