Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< June 2 June 4 >

Contents

[edit] June 3, 2006

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. IceKarmaॐ 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db-spam

Template:Db-spam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Spam is not a criteria for speedy deletion. This template is not listed on WP:CSD and is little used. However when it is used, it is generally mised. Recently a couple of editors have called this A6 (which is attack pages). See [1] and [2]). Why not just delete this? Petros471 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Redundant and has no meaningful use. - Nick C 19:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for redundancy. --Coredesat 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I can't even think of a situation in which I might use this, rather than one of the more relevant templates. —PaperTruths (Talk) 02:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and undelete). It keeps people from tagging things for speedy deletion because it's spam, and notifies them that it's not a CSD. --Rory096 07:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm relying on my memory of it, though- this is the one that says "Spam is not a speedy deletion criterion, blah blah blah?" --Rory096 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rory096. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore, keep, and put a red box around it. Very good tag, it doesn't mark the page for speedy deletion, it says that Spam is not a CSD. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't {{hangon}} good enough for saying its not CSD? — xaosflux Talk 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No, that's not what this does. This was a placeholder template that told people who tried to tag things as {{db-spam}} that it wasn't a CSD. It also prevented any real CSD templates from being created in its place. --Rory096 00:53, 11 June 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. IceKarmaॐ 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Houston Infobox

Template:Houston Infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete. Unused and redundant by {{Infobox City}}. jareha (comments) 15:01, 3 June 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.

[edit] Duplicate references maintenance templates?

I found these templates that seem to duplicate each other: Template:Unreferencedsect (over 150 articles using it), and Template:Unreferenced-section which only links to four articles (note that if any used of these articles were, incorrectly, subst, then it is difficult to find them). The Template:Unreferenced-section tries to cover both bias and lack of references for a section, and uses an offputting 'stop' hand signal, while Template:Unreferencedsect only covers lack of references. Similar is Template:Unreferenced, which covers both articles and sections. It does have a modifier that can be used to label sections, but not many people seem to be aware of it. I also spotted a few duplicate templates in Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates - is this a problem? Carcharoth 10:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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. IceKarmaॐ 23:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Btot

Template:Btot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
New-user invented navigation system. It's a "top of page"-link template, a recommended against usability practice. A new user created it, and placed a few randomly. I've depopulated the 6 places it was inclusioned at. Quiddity 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. QuizQuick 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Max Talk (add) 01:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. EVula 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I used this template but couldn't warm up to it. -- Paleorthid 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is unfinished...why not talk to the user first? --Osbus 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    I left tfd-notices on his talkpage, and he just deleted the links to the templates at his user page. There was nothing to be "finished" that i can see? I'll put one here, so you can see what it does.
    Suffice it to say, we can't just scatter personal navigation systems randomly through our favourite pages. And this one is visually confusing with [edit] links, as well as a bad usability practice. -Quiddity 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unhelpful and would add clutter to pages anyway. Grandmasterka 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-Why unhelpful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Ronin (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. I don't see the significance. I will change my vote ONLY if it is fixed and working well. :)--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- A poor replacement for the (home) key. John Reid 21:19, 11 June 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. IceKarmaॐ 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Secref

Template:Secref (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
same as above. But this one creates additional problems by breaking line height. - User invented nav system. Was applied inconsistently, and random in dispersal. I've depopulated the 8 pages it was inclusioned at. Quiddity 00:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. EVula 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I used this template but couldn't warm up to this approach. A linked asterisk is easy to miss, even when anticipated. -- Paleorthid 05:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C 19:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pretty nonstandard link implementation; seems like a usability issue. —PaperTruths (Talk) 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant.--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:43, 8 June 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 Keep. IceKarmaॐ 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User_pneumono

I believe this template is pretty much useless since few people have this disorder/disease. QuizQuick 00:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - has already passed a TfD. --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    it should have had the "tfdend" tag placed on it's talk page then. -Quiddity 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course nobody has it, it's a joke. --Rory096 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Coredesat 06:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per above. EVula 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - stop trying to delete all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Speedy Keep. A second TfD process for this one? Please... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rory096. - Nick C 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strikes me as a clever spin on some of the existing health/mental health condition userboxes, though I know those have been controversial. Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis tends to be a favorite word of self-confessed sesquipedalianists. Its entry in the OED (last I checked) actually includes a phrase to the effect of "often used as an example of a very long word". It's some gentle humor for word enthusiasts—possibly an inside joke for that group, but no more useless than other humor userboxes. (I might be too new to vote, but I think the comment stands.) —PaperTruths (Talk) 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy -- This UBX does not conform to general UBX policy for UBX in template space; it is too wide. If it is reformatted to comply with these restrictions then it may be removed to template space. John Reid 21:21, 11 June 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 speedy keep Will (E@) T 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User n00b

Possibly offensive. QuizQuick 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Speedy keep How is this offensive? Ideally, people pick their own user boxes. The only way this could be offensive is if someone applies it to somebody else's user page without their consent; since this would be classified as vandalism anyway (regardless of what the content is; a user box that said "I'm awesome!", if unwanted, would still be vandalism), its a moot point. EVula 04:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep My thoughts exactly. ^^^ —Mira 05:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I havent heard of another user putting this box on a new user's userpage yet --Osbus 12:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is obviously not offensive to the 50+ people who have this on their page. Also, this has been brought up before; it was decided to keep it then, too. So, what exactly is the problem? I'm changing my response to Speedy keep. EVula 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - stop trying to delete all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Speedy Keep. Since you choose your userboxen, you're free to choose this one, or not. It is auto-humor, nothing more... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. - Nick C 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Grafikm_fr. --Coredesat 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grafikm_fr and EVula. As a self-declared "n00b"...  :D Well. If you can't laugh at yourself, other people will do it for you. Why should they have all the fun? —PaperTruths (Talk) 22:48, 3 June 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 Keep. IceKarmaॐ 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User smartass

Possible change of the word "smartass"?QuizQuick 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

i concur-maybe 'user smartmouth/smarty?I WANT SOME CHEESE PIZZA AND SODA! 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It's a perfectly legitimate word. Is there any reason for deletion other than the fact that you find this word offensive? —Mira 02:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see zero reason to change it, other than the fact that you don't like the word. Wikipedia:Profanity has nothing to say on the matter one way or the other. EVula 04:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why is this even up for deletion? It's not offensive or vulgar, it's just silly. --Eastlaw 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree. This template is in no way offensive and it should be kept. Ivan Kricancic 07:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above posters. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above posters. Not everything needs to be so censored. Now for my smartass comment: You may now un-bunch your panties and live a little.—MJCdetroit 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - stop trying to delete all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep per Coredesat. After having reverted a bit of vandalism, I'm hard-pressed to find the word smartass even a little racy. (And I'm fairly straight-laced.) —PaperTruths (Talk) 22:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, what's wrong with it. --Terence Ong 15:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not censored... And anyway, if you don't like naughty words, you should bring that up on the template's talk page, not bring it to TfD. Grandmasterka 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grandmasterka.--M@rēino 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no valid reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Uncensored power is on Wikipedia.
  • Subst and delete-Not because of the word smartass, but because the template is mindless drivel that we don't need. --tjstrf 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not? It's humourous and means no harm at all. :)--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep WP:NOT censored. jgp 17:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This is not a general-purpose template; it's a UBX. Please don't nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 21:22, 11 June 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 Keep. IceKarmaॐ 23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BravoFunny

Template:BravoFunny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Has no real benefit to being in the Template: namespace, as it isn't very complex. The same text could easily have been subst:'d, and isn't among the same signifigance as say, an Oscar. Also, the template should not be in the lead, but instead in a section on awards or reception of the film and such. Mysekurity[m!] 05:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It could be substed, but it might be changed in the future, so there's no real point, as it is encyclopaedic. The template being in the wrong place isn't a reason to delete it. --Rory096 05:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template was not meant to be complex, but a simple sentence that could be easily inserted into a paragraph or list. Per an IRC converssation prior to the creation of this template, it was strongly suggested that this not be subst:ed as there may be future revisions. (If necessary, I will provide a transcript of that part of the IRC conversataion with the other's approval.) The template language is easier to see, and therefor, easier to move around to where it most belongs. The original placement was so that it would be seen by other editors and moved to wherever they felt the most appropriate. I have no objection to the changing the placement of the template within the articles, however, please keep the template, at least until other editors can more properly place it within the articles and a final form can be agreed upon. The template was originally created to make it easier to input the information within it.
    —Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepWeak Keep "Complexity" isn't a criteria for removing a template, is it? If so, that's news to me... Aside from that, I think its a nice standardization of an "award" (though minor). If you don't like its placement within the article, then move it, don't axe the template. EVula 14:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - totally useless. (Ibaranoff24 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Weak keep. This isn't too terribly useful, but I've seen worse than this. I think this could stay. --Coredesat 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. My point wasn't that templates must be complex, but it seems to me to be a waste of template space to have one sentence. You could just have easily copied and pasted text that could later be modified within the article than have a template which cannot be better woven into the text without fully replacing it. BravoFunny is not notable enough to have an entire sentence devoted to it. I'm alright with Lady Aleena's reasoning, but will it be deleted eventually? This just seems rather nonsensical. -Mysekurity[m!] 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are valid reasons for having this as a template. For example if you wanted to make a it add pages to a category or change it to link to the list itself you could easily; having it as a template makes that sort of change trivial. --TexasDex 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that it does add pages to a category. --Rory096 07:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If no article exists on this top 100 then no template should either. No citation is provided (thus easy to fake). Loads of different channels have Top X of all time - should we have 30 of these templates on one article? violet/riga (t) 20:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Ibaranoff24 and Violetriga wish to go through all of the articles and properly place the template where it belongs, and subst:s it in all of them, I will not object to the deletion. Until the editors of the articles place the template where it most belongs, let it stay.
    —Lady Aleena talk/contribs 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not commenting on the placement - I'm saying that the entire concept of its inclusion is wrong! violet/riga (t) 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It might seem good, but now, my vote leans on delete until the template is fixed (then will I be able to see what the template is really for) :)--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "fixed?" It categorizes the articles while standardizing the wording of the note about being on the list. --Rory096 07:52, 10 June 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia%7ETemplates_for_deletion_Log_2006_June_3_6fe2.html"