Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 6

message: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Ready to delete says
:Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.
Since the closing is now on the daily log, and I've noticed that few are added to the /Log/Deleted, couldn't this step be eliminated?
:--William Allen Simpson 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready to delete log 

message: Should we make Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion to deal with all that rubbish so that we can focus again on templates outside of userspace?  No wonder there's a backlog here.  violet/riga (t) 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why this is attractive, the problem is that if you do it, it will mean that with fewer 'normal' participants seeing it, the userbox fanatics will find it all the easier to block any deletions. --Doc ask? 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed...That could be a serious issue. Michael 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion 

message: The recent problems surround Special:Whatlinkshere for templates appears to be fixed. I've come across several templates that have plainly had their links fixed between nomination and closure, and bugzilla:4549 indicates that Tim Starling added a patch and reran the relevant script recently. This message is an advertisement for willing victims in the Holding cell, which is desirous of your ministrations. In exchange, you will find that your edit count goes up in a satisfying manner Note that this can be fatal as usual.-Splashtalk 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the message. And thanks to Tim Starling, of course. This is very good news. If I'm enough bored (and have time) I will continue to help at the holding cell. Sadly, I've been recently very busy in re WP:AUM, which is (was?) a tremendous wikipedian-hours resource hog. BTW I'm not interested in high edit counts (to the contrary - Re "recent changes spam" by my bot and accusations for running it too fast). --Adrian Buehlmann 08:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. I would also like to know why it is not possible to have links created through a transclusion shown as such, like those created through a REDIRECT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This does seem a little bit weird to me. I suppose, from a maintenance point-of-view, the 'remedy' is to always orphan any redirects first so that you're actually looking for the name of the redirect rather than of the actual template. I imagine a bot not doing redirects-first would get confused. -Splashtalk 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatlinkshere appears fixed 

message: User:Angr has been voting to speedy delete articles under T1 on the basis that argument on the template talk page "proves" that the template is "divisive". This seems preposterous to me, because it means that any time I want to get a template deleted, all I have to do is troll the talk page and the resulting argument will make it speedyable under T1. Can we get a clarification of what "divisive" means? --causa sui talk 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Divisive" in this context means that there are one or more admins willing to delete the item in question.  T1 can only be applied to templates, however, not to articles.  --Dschor 01:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria T1 

message: Hey guys, why are like half the things being suggested for deletion, because wikipedia is no place for advertisements or whatnot? I mean come on, there have to be other, more important things to be worried about then this...--TheOneCalledA1 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously... 

message: Remember the templates AnarchismDildo and AnarchismDef? The user who created those, Hogeye, has been banned for a month. Now, however, he is even more belligerent as an anonymous user and sockpuppet, User:AnarChrist. He recently vandalized Template:Primarysources by wiping the page and replacing everything with the same thing from AnarchismDildo/Def. I'm not sure what bureaucratic practice I'm supposed to follow in order to help put a stop to the disruptiveness, so I was wondering if any admins wanted to take a look at the situation (evidence). Thanks! --AaronS 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request admin assistance 

message: I removed my own nomination of three templates because I have changed my mind. These should be keep. Since I nominated them, I think removing it should be fine. The other votes were only keep. Sorry for the mess.--Adam (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for my removal 

message: Please use  when proposing the deletion of userboxes. Just paste in  into the body text and it will not break anyone's page. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tfd-inline 

message: The archives seem to be incomplete, or at least muddled.  For instance, though Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006 exists, I can find absolutely nothing explaining or documenting the vote to delete Template:User Lutheran: there's not even any TfD page that links to it, and the deletion debate only happened a week or so ago and is directly relevant to discussions about userboxes on the main TFD page now. --Saforrest 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  There's no link because there was no discussion.  See User_talk:Improv#Userboxen and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates. --Saforrest 14:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No archives for TFD? 

message: Could someone del Template:Useless? J. D. Redding 11:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Useless