January 25
Temperature conversion
- 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 section.
The result of the discussion was Delete - considered this as a creator/user request as everything is now moved to ((temperature)). SkierRMH (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Rømer conversion
- Template:Réaumur conversion
- Template:Newton conversion
- Template:Delisle conversion
- Template:Rankine conversion
- Template:Fahrenheit conversion
- Template:Kelvin conversion
- Template:Celsius conversion
Former single-use templates (article Temperature conversion), currently unused having been replaced by ((temperature)). Jɪmp 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you did there. You actually moved these templates (and their histories) to a sub page of ((temperature)) (and are actually still a part of the template's workings itself), and these are just the redirects that are left over. In that case, you might be able to make this a speedy delete request. -- Ned Scott 01:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Standardized is always better than single use. —MJCdetroit (yak) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Simpler is better. Doczilla (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2008 (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 section.
Template:Request protection
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was already under discussion (approx. 60 seconds earlier). Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Request protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary. There are other templates which serve the same purpose — Enigmaman (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2008 (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 section.
Template:Request protection
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#T2 (non-admin closure) Happy‑melon 13:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Request protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Really bad idea. First of all, this template says it should only be removed once the page is protected, so it's stated as a demand instead of as a request. Very counter to what a wiki is. Also, we already have very well established process for requesting protection. There is simply no need for this template given that process. Plus the template doesn't give a real explanation as to why protection is wanted. All in all, just a bad idea. Btw, if we delete this, we need to delete this corresponding category — WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My bad, I was starting one at the same time that you were. Either way, I agree. It's phrased all wrong and there really is no purpose for it. Enigmaman (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both the template and the category. Kudos to Woohookitty for bringing this to TfD at all, to me it looks like a rather uncontroversial WP:CSD#T2. User:Dorftrottel 08:04, January 25, 2008
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2 - blatant misrepresentation of WP:RFP. Happy‑melon 09:49, 25 January 2008 (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 section.
Template:Family Guy Star Wars
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was Delete. jj137 (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Family guy star wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Navigation template for two episodes, one of which does not exist. — -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only two transclusions, therefore not necessary for easier navigation. User:Dorftrottel 08:01, January 25, 2008
- Delete per above. Happy‑melon 09:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only has links to two episodes. Martarius (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnecessary template for episodes whose articles are already linked together. No navigation purpose is served. Doczilla (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no need to have a template for two entries. StuartDD contributions 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cheers. Trance addict 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete that's what "see also" was created for ;) SkierRMH (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (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 section.