Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8, 2006

[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 page.

The result of the debate wasspeedy delete for disruption and WP:POINT. David | Talk 15:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pedo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template was speedied on Feb 7th but has now been recreated. Inappropriate content for wikipedia & premature given the request for arbitration over the userbox incident. Also, there was a deletion review which failed Mikkerpikker ... 10:41, 8 February 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 KEEP. There is absolutely no mandate for TfD to enforce a particular block template on all editors, and absolutely no reason to delete this template. Those citing "per nom" rely on "the nom" having any weight: the keepers argue briefly but entirely effectively that this template is not redundant, since some people want to use it. Those who simply say "test4 is better" should stick to using test4. -Splashtalk 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test4a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to test4. Avi 06:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is that it is redundant to {{test4}}. No one would have to type anything out. -- Avi 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That template, as pointed out by JYolkowski, is not the same. So anyone wanting to type this content would have to either type it out or subst: and then edit again to change the text. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid point; but in that case we need to come up with a better nameing schema. As of now the 'a' appendment can mean eithr "no image" or "deleteing content". Further, the "im" suffix for the 4-level test means "immediate." -- Avi 16:56, 9 February 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 ALREADY REDIRECTED to test-n. -Splashtalk 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Testb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to test-n, and doesn't follow naming schema. Avi 06:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant test-n, Quarl :), testb has a spot for a page name, as does test-n; test alone does not. -- Avi 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I don't know what I was thinking. Quarl (talk) 2006-02-08 08:20Z
Please explain -- Avi 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting any of these disrupts the RC patrollers that use them, which is IMHO a Bad Thing. JYolkowski // talk 03:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wouldn't if we had a small, specific set of templates, and all RC patrollers were informed of that set. BD2412 T 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We are working on minimizing the number of user-warning templates to a small, mnemonically-consistent set which allows the flexibility to have page names or not. BTW, I'm also a RC patroller and a Vandal reverter etc. But why do we need 4, 4a, 2a, 2del, 2b, etc. There should be 5 test templates, each with the ability to have a page name added. And perhaps there can be a few for removing content, as opposed to blanking or adding. Regardless, RC patrollers and Vandal Fighters should be keeping track of what template to use via {{TestTemplates}} -- Avi 15:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what {{test2a-n}} is for, AND it is mnemonically consistent with {{test2a}} as opposed to {{test2b}} -- Avi 15:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently redirected to {{test2a-n}} to which it was near identical, as it relates to removing content. -- Avi 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's test2b rather than testb. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I feel like Quarl in the Tfd above. :) Thanks Abe -- Avi 17:21, 9 February 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 ALREADY DELETED. This is getting boring, and is becoming a waste of time and space. -Splashtalk 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nospeedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive, counterproductive, misinformed. Also delete accompanying category. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey c'mon. It's not whiny. I said please fer cryin out loud! :) --D-Day 11:52, 8 February 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. -Splashtalk 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Metro Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was on Metro Manila. Infoboxes are to have a consistently formatted table for a set of articles on a common subject-- but this infobox is only for use on one article. Worse, it conflicts with Template:Infobox Philippine region (Metro Manila is a Philippine region). Having this template is like having a California infobox that conflicts in style and content with the standard US State infobox. Delete. Coffee 00:33, 8 February 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 ALREADY DELETED. Surprise!-Splashtalk 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No AmE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Disparaging, condescending, divisive, counterproductive, unused. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"and is therefore is the most correct." - Now that's comedy! Uh, keep. dfg 21:50, 8 February 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 wasSpeedy Delete as the moot after the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia. Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pedophile project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
More WP:POINT pushing by Dschor (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). I won't even comment on the subtly inappropriate title (oops, I just did). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedophilia Project has been deleted. We can delete this template now. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. For the record, the linked page Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia was speedy deleted as G7 (author request).Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.