Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 5

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. --Coredesat 08:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is too long to transclude. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia.

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.

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, early close due to falling under speedy guidelines. Wizardman 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Vietnamesename (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Obviously a test of some sort, which has no transclusions and doesn't seem to do anything anyway. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but was told to come here instead. — PC78 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete : having {{Vietnamese name}} , I tend to agree with nominator. Mukadderat 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• I looked at this thing again, and as far as I can tell it seems to be transcluding itself. Very odd. PC78 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no use for it. --Jon Terry 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as both unused and rather confusing, as PC78 notes. Nyttend 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unused, useless, and not needed. Jmlk17 04:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this was clearly a test.--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - not worthwhile and will be recreated if necessary. Guroadrunner 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Test. End of story. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no need for it. --BelovedFreak 22:51, 6 September 2007 (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.

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 delete per CSD G7; sole author requests deletion. — TKD::Talk 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:StarCraft faction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template is not used (or was ever used for long), and is unable to provide real-world encyclopedic information. It was created by me for use on faction articles, but is no longer needed due to a change in approach to the treatment of factions. It also creates a sizeable blank area at the top of articles that used it. It should be deleted. — Sabre 13:21, 5 September 2007 (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.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dab-criteria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, too informal and rambling, no real use for such a template. — Jack · talk · 02:40, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

• Delete. Too verbose and without any practical use. Enok^talk 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Distracting and not very useful, if at all. Jmlk17 04:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems more like a short guideline/essay than a tag.
  Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
  04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Attempt to create a guideline in template form. --Clay Collier 19:45, 6 September 2007 (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.

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 after replacing existing uses with {{split}}. — TKD::Talk 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dabneeded (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Function better met by {{split}}. — Jack · talk · 02:33, Wednesday, 5 September 2007

• Delete. {{split}} words it better. Enok^talk 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Enok. Jmlk17 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Jmlk17 =D
  Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
  04:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant. --Clay Collier 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Enok - fair enough! --Dancraggs 18:50, Friday September 7, 2007 (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.