Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 3

< December 2	December 4 >

December 3

Template:Coat of arms

Decision was delete

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.

Martinp23 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't provide any information on the image's copyright status. In fact, it's been that way for a year now, and that doesn't seem to have motivated people to tag these images with valid tags (e.g. {{gfdl-self}}, {{seal}}, {{symbol}}, etc.). It's kind of confusing having image tags that don't present any inforation on their licence status here; a simple category could do as well if needed. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This tag is a constant cause of confusion for new users. Replacing with a cat seems fine. - cohesion 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between {{symbol}} and Template:Coat of arms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Alan.ca 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol is a fair use assertion tag. It should be used according to WP:FAIR, the coat of arms template is only informational, as in, "this image is a coat of arms". - cohesion 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've removed fair use violations of images tagged with this template innumerable times. A good portion of the complaints I receive over fair use image violation removal is for images with this tag. One of the sources of confusion on this tag is that a coat of arms could have been drawn today. The blazon it comes from might be centuries old and thus free of copyright. But, the coat of arms itself might be as recent as today. People assume that because a blazon is old that the resulting coat of arms must likewise be out of copyright. All sorts of confusion descends from this template, not the least of which is that there is no clear indication as to the copyright status of the image. At a minimum, this template should be used in conjunction with another license template but it rarely is. --Durin 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't you put a BIG BOLD WARNING on it that says THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGHT TAG AND SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ITSELF, like {{withpermission}}? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point. {{withpermission}} changes the status of an image. {{coatofarms}} has no effect on the status of the image. --Durin 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could do that, but it would still occupy a weird place as a "tag" that isn't a copyright tag. We really don't have many informational only templates for images, it would be in better, more similar company as a category. Also, not to be negative to new users, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that the warnings on copyright templates that say things like do not use for any reason get noticed ;) - cohesion 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other comments posted. I've also seen people upload coats of arms to the wikipedia and assume that is OK because they've added this tag.--E va ^bd 13:07, 8 December 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Buffyfanfilms

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 M a rtinp23 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A template linking to various Buffy fan films that are under AfD as being, well, fan films (one of the links is external). Danny Lilithborne 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the AfDs have finished, then cleanup if a reasonable number of the films are kept, or delete if most are deleted. --ais523 08:51, 4 December 2006 (U T C)
Delete, most of them are getting deleted via AFD. Proto::► 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AFDs are done, only one survived, does not aid in navigation. Hbdragon88 00:58, 11 December 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:SeanMackTestTemplate

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 by Eagle 101. Whisp e ring 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test not used since August. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23 3 December 2006 (GMT). 20:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a test page, and tagged as such. --ais523 08:52, 4 December 2006 (U T C)

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:64TeamBracket

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. — CharlotteWebb 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how useful this would be, and it would seriously mess up any articles it is used in. No transclusions. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 16:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't seem completely useless (I can imagine it being used to show a 6-round tournament), and I don't think it would 'seriously mess up articles'. --ais523 17:46, 4 December 2006 (U T C)
Keep, can be used for sporting events and stuff like that, current events and so on. Unless a better template is found, one should keep it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a clear and definite use. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 04:48, 7 December 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:Perth Suburb

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 M a rtinp23 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete by {{Infobox Australian Place}} and is not in use anymore. --TheJosh 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. feydey 16:33, 5 December 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:BrisSuburbBox

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 M a rtinp23 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is obsolete because of {{Infobox Australian Place}} and has no transclusions. Orderinchaos78 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obsolete --TheJosh 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 16:33, 3 December 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:Infobox Australian Suburb2

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, would it be possible for us to have one listing with all of the remaining Australian infoboxes which have been superseded? M a rtinp23 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is obsolete because of {{Infobox Australian Place}} and has no transclusions. --◄§ĉҺɑʀκs ► 07:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete --TheJosh 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Ter e nc e Ong 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessarily, kill it. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 04:50, 7 December 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:Austlocalgovtarea

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 M a rtinp23 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made obsolete by Infobox Australian Place. No transluctions exist anymore (upgraded by TheJoshBot) --TheJosh 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Orderinchaos78 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete --TheJosh 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 3 December 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:routeboxcamini

Decision was delete

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. M a rtinp23 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussions at WT:CASH this template is now orphaned and obsolete. Delete as it has been replaced by {{infobox road}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- NORTH ^talk 00:01, 11 December 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:PatentLaw

Decision was merge and redirect

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 merge and redirect. M a rtinp23 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant, see Template:Patent law. --Edcolins 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge with Template:Patent law. This is redundant but some links may be helpful to keep. —David618 ^t e 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to avoid having two templates for the same thing. --ais523 13:37, 5 December 2006 (U T C)
Redirect. Per above. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ais523 and David618. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:01, 11 December 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:PatentTypes

Decision was no consensus

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. M a rtinp23 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Doesn't appear very useful. --Edcolins 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure:Perhaps if it found a use? I could go around and add it where applicable. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure there is a use for it - the articles listed in the box for starters. I've gone ahead and added the template to the articles. If nothing else it might make more people aware of it. Koweja 02:46, 14 December 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.