Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 31
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 July 31)
July 31
[edit]- 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 deleteGarion96 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Fq-prod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant template. Even its creator does not use it. Adoniscik(t, c) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete use {{importance}}or{{notability}}instead. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)- Huh? I didn't realize there was a problem with creating templates for personal use. I use this template all the time when prodding articles, placing it instead of retyping my most common reason for prodding. I don't think the templates suggested as replacements can be used inside a prod template, so they won't be helpful, but if the rules don't allow me to create this little time-save for myself, I guess I can go back to typing out the whole sentence every time I prod an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I beg to differ; no mainspace article is linked to your template. How exactly do the more common templates not duplicate the functionality of yours? It's bad form to name a template after yourself, I think, if you are going to categorize it among the other templates. --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- No mainspace article is linked to this template because I only use it when prodding articles, and therefore, all the articles where I have used it have been deleted. I didn't categorize this template at all, since I just created it for my own private use; as you say, it seemed unnecessary to me, but someone else seems to have added it to some categories. I use it like this: {{subst:prod|{{fq-prod}}}}; is there a template already existing that creates a prod for non-notability? If there is, I'm glad to use it; the two suggested above don't add an article to a deletion queue, I think. In any case, I'm not that attached to it, and can easily type out my prods if I need to, but I've created other templates for my own use, and I don't want to be in violation of any rules I didn't know about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- If this is for your own personal use, it might be better to move it to a subpage of your user page. You can include it using subst. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, or userfy, or rename to something like
{{nn-prod}}, but should not be kept in main template namespace as written. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)- Did you mean
{{prod-nn}}? If so, looks like good advice. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Did you mean
- I think it's worth noting that this template is contrary to WP:PROD which says Tailor your reason to each individual article; generic messages are not helpful. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - we have better, existing templates that say the same thing (e.g., {{reliablesources}}). In addition, the name suggests this is a PROD template, which as far as I can tell it is not - article should be PRODded using {{prod}}, not this template. Terraxos (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2008 (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 section.
- 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 per discussion and fact that template is orphaned. Garion96 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
One article linked only template. — Wright Roload (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - A guinness book of world records has been published yearly since 1955, giving a potential of 54 links. Clearly a work in progress that requires contributions not deletion. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)- Keep per above. This template is most likely a work in progress, and I would give it the benefit of the doubt. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Modify to remove the list of non-links, per Wikipedia:Navigational templates (Unlinked text should be avoided) but keep the rest. Links can be added as articles are written.— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)- Delete — I took a closer look and realized that all existing "links" in the navbox were to individual sections in the same article. No navigation template is required for this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Andrwsc - there is no need for a navigational template between different sections of a single article, that's what the table of contents is for. Terraxos (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (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 section.
- 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 as a test page based on the contributors previous and subsequent edits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Template:MOna (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
A random little personal rant on ocean pollution that abruptly cuts off really doesn't qualify as a template in any way, shape or form. Vianello (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2008 (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 section.