Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:44, 18 January 2006

< January 16	January 18 >

Template:Good
Delete — User:Piedras grandes has created a number of "Good article"/"Bad article templates" and started applying them willy-nilly. The "Good" ones overlap with WP:GA; the bad ones are, well, bad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. Template:Good, Template:Bad, Template:Good Article, etc. Unhelpful, randomly applied spam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Good Article and Template:Bad Article were nothing but trasclusions of Template:Good and Template:Bad; I deleted them already. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate of work at WP:GA. Slambo (Speak) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sycthos ^Talk 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad

Template:Bad
Delete — User:Piedras grandes has created a number of "Good article"/"Bad article templates" and started applying them willy-nilly. The "Good" ones overlap with WP:GA; the bad ones are, well, bad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a duplicate of work at WP:GA. Slambo (Speak) 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sycthos ^Talk 23:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question why in gods name is there a picture of a horse?— Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)

Template:Spelling

Template:Spelling
Delete — Redundant to {{copyedit}} and inconsistent style. Stifle 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle. Sycthos ^Talk 23:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I alredy no how too spell write on my own, don't need something to tell me how — Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)

Template:Spellingminor

Template:Spellingminor
Delete — Redundant to {{copyedit}} and inconsistent style. Stifle 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Don't really see a problem with this template, find it useful. what do others think? Gryffindor 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. It is a less noticeable duplicate of {{copyedit}}. Sycthos ^Talk 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Useless

Template:Useless
Delete — Redundant to {{copyedit}}/{{cleanup-spam}}/{{nonsense}}, inconsistent style, and unable to be NPOV. Stifle 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See {{cleanup}}. Sycthos ^Talk 00:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BITE. R adiant _>|< 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-USBG

Unused/orphan. Nothing links to it. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatlinkshere is broken... but the non-existent category only contains this template anyway. Delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Whatlinkshere only identifies this template in AfD. Sycthos ^Talk 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Makesense

Template:Makesense
Delete — An example of WP:BITE, I think. We already have {{confusing}} and {{cleanup-importance}} which appear to cover all bases. Stifle 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Stifle 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle. Sycthos ^Talk 00:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically this template is patent nonsense, and should be added to itself, also, terrible picture— Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)
Keep. I agree that {{confusing}} gets the point across fine. I enjoy, though, using this template on my user page, just for fun...maybe we could move it to the userboxes section. bcatt 06:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Badbio

Template:Badbio
Delete — This template is redundnat clutter. If something deserves this tag, then it deserves deletion, in which case this tag serves no person. It's not like "verify", or cleanup tags, which give direction as to what somebody can do to fix an article. If we wish to give advice to the creator about where to go, we should do so on their talk page, and not have this which is seen by all our readers, who must wander why keep aricles that don't belong. Rob 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can be placed on the user's talk page if desired. Stifle 11:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about removing the ambiguity from the wording so that this template is only used for talk pages (and instead references the article in question). I liked {{notability}} except for it being too general, so I just made {{bio-notability}}. What do you think about that one? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 13:22Z
Keep and reword. Only allow this to be used on Talk pages. —gorgan_almighty 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as redundant. We have {{nn-bio}} for the page, and {{nn-warn}} for the creator's talk page. R adiant _>|< 16:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{nn-warn}}. That already has all the information needed, no need for a merge. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless. We have templates covering that information, and most users would immediately propose AfD instead. Also, I do not understand why you want to redirect {{badbio}}. When that template becomes unused, nobody would use the name of that template. Sycthos ^Talk 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New policy/guidelines I agree that in this state this template doesn't work that great. But by just warning people that have already written a nn-bio we're just treating the sympotoms not the real issue. I really think that we need to make it clearer that there are other options if people want to have their biographical information done wiki-style. The system as it is is obviously not working as nn-bios are ones of the biggest time drains the site has to deal with. This template and the "linkspam" that someone so deftly deleted was attempting to deal with that bigger issue. At least that's what I remember about it's inception. --Wotwu 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a really ugly template, if kept, can it be made.. you know, less ugly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)
Delete - redundant with {{nn-warn}} Renata 06:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4LA

Template:4LA
Delete — Rarely used template to be removed, see strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA poll. Orphaning in progress. Category:Ambiguous four-letter acronyms can be removed at the same time. William Allen Simpson 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Tedernst | talk 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and note that the correct term is "ETLA". R adiant _>|< 11:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please be aware that because of recent changes, the "What links here" lists for these templates are woefully inaccurate. Premature deletion is likely to result in a large number of broken articles. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Slark 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:5LA

Template:5LA
Delete — Rarely used template to be removed, see strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA poll. Hopefully, already orphaned. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms can be removed at the same time. William Allen Simpson 02:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Tedernst | talk 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and note that the correct term is "DETLA". R adiant _>|< 11:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please be aware that because of recent changes, the "What links here" lists for these templates are woefully inaccurate. Premature deletion is likely to result in a large number of broken articles. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LND

Template:LND
Delete — Rarely used LetterNumberDisambiguation, related templates to be removed, see strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA poll. Hopefully, already orphaned. William Allen Simpson 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Tedernst | talk 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please be aware that because of recent changes, the "What links here" lists for these templates are woefully inaccurate. Premature deletion is likely to result in a large number of broken articles. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be aware that not only am I aware of this issue, I've actively discussed it at Village Pump (technical) and the See# templates currently in the Holding cell Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#To orphan are all my TfD that I check daily for new links. Thank you. --William Allen Simpson 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you: it's nice to know there's a safe pair of hands somewhere. —Phil | Talk 09:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 * '''Comment''': please be aware that because of recent changes, the "What links here" lists for these templates are woefully inaccurate. Premature deletion is likely to result in a large number of broken articles. HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 ** Please be aware that not only am I aware of this issue, I've actively discussed it at Village Pump (technical) and the See# templates currently in the Holding cell [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#To orphan]] are all my TfD that I check daily for new links. Thank you. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
+***Thank you: it's nice to know there's a safe pair of hands somewhere. —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 09:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:44, 18 January 2006

January 17, 2006