Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 25



Template:FGwiki

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary template. The template links to fan wiki and violates WP:ELNO. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  19:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC) AfDs for this template:
 * Delete, 10 December 2007
 * Deletion overturned, 18 December 2007
 * No consensus, 13 October 2008
 * Comment. I made this template, but agree with the nominator's reasons for deletion. Here's a history of previous deletion discussions. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the general consensus is that the Family Guy Wiki isn't a particularly reliable source then we shouldn't have a specific template for it. One can always use wikia to refer to it should there be occasion to. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Speedy if possible.  No further comments, expect per nom and aboveCurb Chain (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2011 (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:Limerick-hurling-bio-stub

 * 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 Deleted per CSD G7. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Created by error Gnevin (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (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:Passed verification

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * articles with resourced statements
 * articles with resourced statements

Unused template with no foreseeable use. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a poor faith, WP:POINTy creation. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not pointy, just misguided. Safe to say that this isn't going to see any actual use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Commment The creator of this template is blocked from editing, but suggests a use on their talk page. The template is currently transcluded from one archived discussion, and has redirects from PV and Pv. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the rationale given by Wikid77 misses the point entirely. When a cleanup tag is no longer applicable, we remove it; we do not rebut it on the article page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as worse than useless. This is about as bad as creating a template. Though that might make a funny webcomic. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitely not needed, and sets a bad precedent (are we supposed to tag every verified statement with this?). Statements on Wikipedia are supposed to be verified, or at least verifiable; there's no need to tag them for that. We tag statements for being unverified because they're the problematic ones. Robofish (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2011 (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.