Template talk:rndc
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Unused, which is logical because we always delete copyright violations and restore only the good versions when there are some. Anywhere that this can be used? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've used this several times when I saw a copyvio definition: I blank the definition and add this template. Obviously, the template doesn't last long (only until a new definition is added), which is why it's unused.—msh210℠ 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't think of that. I have seen it used once, but the article was then deleted about a minute later. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Hasn't been used for quite a while, as far as I know. Not unuseful per se, but there isn't much point to it either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, by the way it passed RFDO because only two people commented some years ago. It is pointless. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd make the same argument I'd make then; copyright violations are always deleted. When there's an entry to go back to, we go back to that. Since a red link is better than a blue link to an empty page, there is no scenario where this template should be used. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments on Talk:noded. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)