Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Miami33139 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
There is no article for rxIRC, I would consider this a housekeeping deletion. We should not have templates for tracking non-notable software. (As a separate issue it is very well established, but I am questionable about this practice of using templates to track software versions.) [[User:Miami33139|Miami33139]] ([[User talk:Miami33139|talk]]) 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
There is no article for rxIRC, I would consider this a housekeeping deletion. We should not have templates for tracking non-notable software. (As a separate issue it is very well established, but I am questionable about this practice of using templates to track software versions.) [[User:Miami33139|Miami33139]] ([[User talk:Miami33139|talk]]) 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Question'''. This appears to be just one of hundreds of similar templates listed in [[:Category:Latest stable software release templates]]. Based on the other listings in the article where it is used, [[Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients]], it appears that quite a few of these products do not have their own articles. Is there something that makes this template especially undesirable, or do you believe that all the templates with similar situations should be deleted as well? --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Question'''. This appears to be just one of hundreds of similar templates listed in [[:Category:Latest stable software release templates]]. Based on the other listings in the article where it is used, [[Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients]], it appears that quite a few of these products do not have their own articles. Is there something that makes this template especially undesirable, or do you believe that all the templates with similar situations should be deleted as well? --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
**Yes, they should probably go away, IMHO. These version templates regularly get deleted after deletion discussions when the parent article goes away as plain housekeeping. If the admin that deletes the article doesn't delete the templates, I follow up with a CSD tag as housekeeping. I've been doing that for months, but this one was contested. Honestly, looking at Comparison of IRC Clients I don't think that is going to break or remove essential information because the redlinked clients don't have version information. Version numbers as standalone info are so arbitrary they might as well be random. [[User:Miami33139|Miami33139]] ([[User talk:Miami33139|talk]]) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' per nominator (housekeeping) templated is not needed, as we do not and should not be in the habit of tracking non-notable products. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per nominator (housekeeping) templated is not needed, as we do not and should not be in the habit of tracking non-notable products. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:13, 27 September 2009
September 27
Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC
- Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There is no article for rxIRC, I would consider this a housekeeping deletion. We should not have templates for tracking non-notable software. (As a separate issue it is very well established, but I am questionable about this practice of using templates to track software versions.) Miami33139 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Question. This appears to be just one of hundreds of similar templates listed in Category:Latest stable software release templates. Based on the other listings in the article where it is used, Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, it appears that quite a few of these products do not have their own articles. Is there something that makes this template especially undesirable, or do you believe that all the templates with similar situations should be deleted as well? --RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they should probably go away, IMHO. These version templates regularly get deleted after deletion discussions when the parent article goes away as plain housekeeping. If the admin that deletes the article doesn't delete the templates, I follow up with a CSD tag as housekeeping. I've been doing that for months, but this one was contested. Honestly, looking at Comparison of IRC Clients I don't think that is going to break or remove essential information because the redlinked clients don't have version information. Version numbers as standalone info are so arbitrary they might as well be random. Miami33139 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator (housekeeping) templated is not needed, as we do not and should not be in the habit of tracking non-notable products. JBsupreme (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Selected philosophy anniversaries
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/December 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/May 30 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 19 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 27 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 28 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 29 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
These were created back in 2005, apparently either for use with Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries or to do something similar just for philosophy. However, the effort seems to have gone in a different direction, creating an article, and these templates were abandoned. Two inquiries by me have produced no indication of any interest in using these templates for anything. I would have contacted the sole editor/creator about speedy deletion, but his user talk page indicates he has left Wikipedia. So here they are. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:2005 Pro Bowl NFC starters
- Template:2005 Pro Bowl NFC starters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
A rather trivial link between players given the current year: contributes to template clutter. Would be better served by a category or list. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Pro Bowl players are important distinctions, not just a "trivial link;" they were all elected as starters to the Pro Bowl, which is akin to being named to the 2005 All-Pro Team. Pats1 T/C 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - think about the logical consequences of that: a 9 time pro bowl starter will require 9 templates, just for this at the bottom of his page. Can't this better be served as a category? Or combined with other Pro Bowl starters? I just happen to think of someone *really* wants to navigate through the pro-bowl starters from a given year, can't they just go to the respective page? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)