Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 13



Template:Reflist1

 * 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Templates created by a new user who didn't understand how the reflist template works and made their own templates. Also possible typo/confusion with etc. I have copied all refs/external links from these templates onto the relevant article pages. ascidian | talk-to-me  22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And here is the first example (now fixed) of the possible confusion these templates could cause. regards, ascidian  | talk-to-me  21:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. – sgeureka t•c 09:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per nom.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete these are actual reference entries for specific topics, and thus the name of the templates are non-elucidating, and the content should be part of the articles themselves, not separate templates. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I almost deleted Template:Reflist2 as it is just links to blogs, etc. but managed to find my way here. Why is there no deletion tag on it? dougweller (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The creator keeps removing it, regards. ascidian  | talk-to-me  15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that won't happen again. He's been asked to respond, he has created a large number of problems from the looks of his talk page, and he's being disruptive. So, indef blocked but easily lifted if he just starts responding and stops his disruption. Hopefully that will get his attention and we can explain to him how he can be a more constructive contributor. I don't know of any other way to do this given his lack of responsiveness. dougweller (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2009 (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 section.

Template:Primary

 * 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not clear what its purpose was at creation in 2005, but it was converted w/in 3 weeks for use on Dab pages whose respective titles end with "... (disambiguation)", to lk to the first article mentioned on the respective pg; the format it provided is now incompatible with WP:MoSDab, and formats of those first entries vary too widely for a Tl to be useful. All Dab pgs using it (w/o subst) have been converted to complying non-Tl markup. Only one non-Dab pg in the main namespace was using or mentioning it -- that one bcz of confusion between "primary topic" and "Main article" -- and that pg has been fixed. (The Twain character, the topic of the article Tom Sawyer, is the primary topic for that title, and e.g. various films bearing Tom Sawyer as their respective titles are the topics of respective articles each covering one film; Tom Sawyer and those film articles are each among those that have an entry apiece on the Dab page Tom Sawyer (disambiguation), but the entry for the primary topic's article, Tom Sawyer, appears first and is distinctively formatted. In contrast, Invasion of Normandy is no doubt a good Main article lk'd via Main) from a corresponding (and similarly or otherwise logically titled) section within the article World War II.) No current uses exist, and any new ones would be errors. I have notified User:William Allen Simpson, who completely changed its purpose 3 years ago; no edits since have been more than trvial housekeeping. Jerzy•t 08:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's unused and (if it had a purpose) could be replaced with other templates. – sgeureka t•c 09:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per nom.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (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 section.