June 28
- 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).
The result of the discussion was redirect to ((Virtualization software)). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Template:Virtualization software, which is older and slightly better organized. Most of their entries are the same. In fact, the real different between the two is the presence of Networking section in one and Tools in another. Fleet Command (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At first glance, it looks like they could be merged. —PC-XT+ 23:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but only ((Virtualization)) → ((Virtualization software)). The latter is older, more comprehensive and has a more meaningful category. "Monolithic" and "microkernel" categorization (apart from being marginally meaningful) cannot accommodate Basilisk II, Bochs, Cooperative Linux, DOSBox, DOSEMU. Fleet Command (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant navigation. Only one navbox is needed, and as the nom points out, this one is less accommodating. —PC-XT+ 03:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: With this edit, the ((Virtualization software)) navbox got the networking virtualization section, which was the last bit that made ((Virtualization)) totally redundant. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:11, 5 July 2016 (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).
Template:More2
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete after replacing with ((details)). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template has one (1) mainspace transclusion, and all but acknowledges in its documentation that it's redundant to ((details)). We should merge the one transclusion to that, then delete this template. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 16:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- replace/delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace and delete seems appropriate —PC-XT+ 00:11, 3 July 2016 (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).
Template:Valley Metro-stub
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, malformed stub template. It has a poor, convention-breaking name, it is unused, and it links to a non-existent category (and - given the size of the parent Category:Valley Metro - it is not likely to get close to the threshold for category creation for a considerable time). While simply changing the name to a more correct ((Valley-Metro-stub)) is an option, the size of the would-be parents Category:United States rapid transit stubs and Category:Arizona transportation stubs (the latter considerably below threshold) and the fact that it is unused don't engender much optimism for it. Deletion until such time that there is a need for it (if ever) seems more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 13:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It also looks like the template's creator has since been banned as a Wikipedia editor - another nail in the template's coffin. Grutness...wha? 13:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as premature per nom —PC-XT+ 00:29, 3 July 2016 (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).
Template:PD-VE-Pic
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused license tag, and also very limited in scope (only applies to photographs) FASTILY 11:06, 28 June 2016 (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).
Template:PD-CA-State-Capitol-Museum
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2016 July 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 8 July 2016 (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).
Template:NGruev
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused license template, likely unsuitable for use outside of Wikipedia (NC restriction). See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev FASTILY 08:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How did the template end up being unused? It used to be used for lots of files. It seems that the user who created the template, TodorBozhinov, recently got a bot notification about F11 tags which someone had added to files, and the file names suggest that most or all of the files contained this template. The files were later deleted by Explicit. This looks very inappropriate, considering that the template was kept at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16#Template:NGruev; users who disagree with that closure should relist the template, not tag the files for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The permission looks very strange and it's unclear what the permission covers or what the photographer meant. It's possible that the files only are covered by a GFDL licence as long as the files are not deleted from 'Wikipedia', and it's unclear if 'Wikipedia' means 'Bulgarian Wikipedia' or any language edition of Wikipedia. Additionally, if you use something under GFDL, then you must include a copy of the licence, but no version number has been specified, so it's not possible to tell which version of the licence you should include when using the images. I don't think that you can circumvent this by including a copy of all versions of the licence as you would then probably have to specify which one of those versions the files are licensed under. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2016 (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).