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 eh? no consensous. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interwikitmp-grp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template seems to been broken the last couple of month. It seems mostly to be some kind of lousy hack/experiment that didn't work. _→AzaToth 11:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and protect, close discussion: Are you kidding? Please tell me you're kidding. This is used in the linking of the Wiki projects...just look at "what links here." This is an important template as far as I can see. If I'm wrong, just let me know. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is actually used by anything official, it's just someone's attempt to set up an interwiki linking system on their own, but it's hideous and a total mess. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup or delete I was checking the history of ((tl/doc)) to see how this was being used. It's possibly helpful, but not in its current form. (By the way, we seem to have done fine before 29 August, which was when this was added to ((tl))'s documentaton page). I also feel like adding ((context)) and ((expand)) to ((interwikitmp-grp))'s documentation... --ais523 11:51, 14 September 2006 (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 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gainax Created. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Gainax created. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A user-specific image "license" template that says nothing about a license at all, only that it was created by the user. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simple and midly amusing, but incredibly uninformative and doesn't help with figuring out copyright status. I'm almost tempted to give this one a username parameter, but it's probably better just to get rid of it. --ais523 08:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. At best, A1. At worst, G1 or A7 (depending if "Gainax Created" is a marketing gimmick or not) --Roninbk 13:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't apply A-class speedy deletion reasons to templates. It's probably just best to let this go the full way. --ais523 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Fine then. Rationale still stands. --Roninbk 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy And apologies for my first-blush dismissal. After actually looking at where the templates are used, it is simply Gainax's way of attempting to assert copyright over pictures he digitally manipulated. (The copyvio issues of attempting to claim authorship over images that have been merely cropped are beyond the scope of this TfD debate) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Userfying would simply support the problematic nature of the templates. --Durin 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Errr? I mean, delete. Does not add value, and could encourage the creation of similar ownership model templates. Substitute some version of the information into pages it is currently used in first, however. -- nae'blis 16:32, 15 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is intended for unfree "faithful digitalizations of a unique ancient Egypt artefact", explaining why such images would automatically be considered Fair Use on Wikipedia. It was created on 4 months ago and currently is used in only one image. Unfortunately, this only one use is wrong as the image source was not provided as the template itself asks for. Abu Badali 03:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we already have templates for pictures of sculptures and 3D art. There should be an image-specific fair use rationale too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. Daniel's page ☎ 03:11, 14 September 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 ittttt's out // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template intended for tagging unfree images of athlets as "likely fair use" . The use of unfree images to illustrate persons, objects and buildings, altough widespread, is highly disocuraged (see item #8 in Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples). Abu Badali 04:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overly specific, already covered by ((promophoto)). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeeeer out! per above. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and, especially, Night Gyr, and inasmuch as, for those Cincinnati Bengals fans who might partake of the encyclopedia, any tag involving the words sports and mugshot will likely be exorbitantly traumatizing. Joe 00:56, 17 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Streets Member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userbox for a WikiProject that never got past the boilerplate stage. No transclusions, no substs, so completely unused. The WikiProject is currently on MfD (with a unanimous 'delete' at the time of writing). --ais523 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Defer to MfD decision. If the project goes away, then obviously delete the template. No sense deleting this before the MfD resolves. --Roninbk 15:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer Delete per Roninbk. Probably should have been bundled to begin with. -- nae'blis 16:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Project has been deleted, this one can go now too. --Roninbk _{t c #} 09:01, 20 September 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.