Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3, 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 was Delete. IceKarmaॐ 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-spam

[edit]

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)[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. IceKarmaॐ 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Houston Infobox

[edit]

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

Duplicate references maintenance templates?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Btot

[edit]

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)[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. IceKarmaॐ 23:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Secref

[edit]

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)[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. IceKarmaॐ 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_pneumono

[edit]

I believe this template is pretty much useless since few people have this disorder/disease. QuizQuick 00:40, 3 June 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 speedy keep Will (E@) T 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User n00b

[edit]

Possibly offensive. QuizQuick 00:43, 3 June 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. IceKarmaॐ 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User smartass

[edit]

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

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

  • 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)[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. IceKarmaॐ 23:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BravoFunny

[edit]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - totally useless. (Ibaranoff24 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_3&oldid=1080958964"