Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 30 July 2 >

July 1

[edit]


Template:NAUMANN

[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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NAUMANN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, overly specific license template. Happy‑melon 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above JIMp talk·cont 04:35, 2 July 2008 (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 section.

Template:East Carolina bowl games

[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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Carolina bowl games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merged this template to {{ECUPiratesFB}}. Notified creator. PGPirate 19:14, 1 July 2008 (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 section.

Template:Sockblockdodge

[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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sockblockdodge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

improper template that states block evading socks will only be temporarily blocked, redundant to other socking templates. MBisanz talk 17:17, 1 July 2008 (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 section.

Template:Same-sex marriage

[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 no consensus WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Same-sex marriage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant and unnecessary, as the same information is already presented in a more comprehensive fashion in {{Same-sex unions}}, which is used in all of the same articles. It simply adds clutter to the bottom of article pages, where it interferes with other templates that are actually useful and don't replicate other templates (such as, for example, {{LGBT}}, {{Same-sex marriage in the United States}} or {{Same-sex marriage in Europe}}. A classic case of unnecessary template creep. — Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (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 section.


Template:PN

[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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used since 2006 and is of no use. – Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:46, 1 July 2008 (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 section.

Template:Length conversion

[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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Length conversion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This nomination includes the template's documentation page & its two redirects.

The template is redundant to {{convert}}. It has no transclusions (except on its own doc page). It uses a very large #switch and therefore would cause template problems if used in an article. It would also create overlinking problems since there is no way to turn the linking off. JIMp talk·cont 04:29, 1 July 2008 (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 section.

Template:Italic title

[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 speedy deleted per G7. –xenocidic (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italic title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violates style guidelines and is used only on the talk page of a banned user. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Under used template which is redundant because of the HTML font tag. Yamakiri TC § 07-1-2008 • 04:44:35
Wrongtitle displays as {{wrongtitle|''Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 1''}}.
  • Oh! That didn't happen when I previewed the edit. Delete per WP:SNOW.
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.

Template:ArticleConcern

[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 delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArticleConcern (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

a very BITEy, threatening, over process-wonky template that needs to go. MBisanz talk 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - "I hope not to seem unfriendly or argumentative, but I'm concerned about article ARTICLE required, which you have edited. Could we discuss that concern here?" - that's not bitey in the slightest, far less so than any of our other speedy deletion warning templates. It was created to stop new users getting bitten and one of Ben's major wiki aims (to stop newer users who don't understand our way getting bitten). It's modelled on {{UsernameConcern}} and an ideal way to start discussion with a new user that has created an article that doesn't quite conform. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from the BITE issues, this is far too vague to be useful. It claims that there are 'concerns' over 'issues' with an article, without ever specifying what those issues actually are. I don't see why we should be encouraging people to use a template like this over other templates that draw attention to specific problems, making it far easier for the user to address them. Terraxos (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not per nom but per Terraxos. Slapping a boilerplate template on someone's talk page does not equate to having a discussion regarding their edits. This template is vague to the point of uselessness, as it makes no attempt (and how can it?) to identify specific concerns. Honestly, if you have a problem with someone's edits and wish to draw their attention to it, use your own words to explicitly state what that problem is. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Yes, use your own words not a vague meaningless template. JIMp talk·cont 08:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User talkpage templates and boilerplates are to help de-personalize and quickly convey problems that someone is heading for trouble or content is pending deletion. This does seem a bit bitey to me. We should try to win problem editors over to being constructive and if it's a matter of disagreeing over content or style issues than boilerplate seems likely to inflame rather than build dialog. Banjeboi 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please let's not have beat-around-the-bush templates that say nothing of substance. If you see a problem with an article, say what it is, get to the point, and solve the problem. This template doesn't do any of those things. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Terraxos. A template that lists various ways for a newbie to solve a problem without specifying said problem is more than useless. Naerii 06:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure this is reasonable to ever actually use, but it does provide a reasonable description of content dispute resolution in a neutral tone. It is far too vague to be useful for subst'ing, but perhaps it is a reasonable model to start from. As it stands though, it makes the upcoming dialogue incredible impersonal, and ruins it from the start. If this could be moved somewhere, and properly annotated it might be useful. The documentation for the template is also useful. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2008 (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 section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_1&oldid=1079970185"