| Revision as of 16:44, 21 July 2007 editBleh999 (talk | contribs)3,565 editsm Only administrators may close template for deletion discussions!← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:45, 21 July 2007 edit undoBleh999 (talk | contribs)3,565 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| ::That is debatable, there is no set policy or time frame for relisting a template for deletion, besides I didn't actually participate in the previous deletion request nor was I aware of it (if I had, you may have a point about abuse of TfD) ] 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | ::That is debatable, there is no set policy or time frame for relisting a template for deletion, besides I didn't actually participate in the previous deletion request nor was I aware of it (if I had, you may have a point about abuse of TfD) ] 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Common sense would dictate that, if a talk page exists, one would review it prior to nominating an article or template for deletion. It's not like it wasn't flagged with a link to the old TfD: . ]<sup>]</sup> 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | :::Common sense would dictate that, if a talk page exists, one would review it prior to nominating an article or template for deletion. It's not like it wasn't flagged with a link to the old TfD: . ]<sup>]</sup> 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ] is completely '''wrong'''. | |||
| ] is absolutely clear on this point: | |||
| '''''Renominations''': After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."'' | |||
| Less than four days after the previous AfD was closed is by no means a "reasonable amount of time". | |||
| This is a ] issue, ] is in clear violation of deletion policy, and the correct procedure has been pointed out to him/her repeatedly. The re-opening of ''this'' AfD after a correct closing is also a violation of policy. I am re-closing and expect it to remain closed. | |||
| I will state one more time... | |||
| ]: ] is your remedy if you disagree with the result of the previous AfD. If you remove the closing tags in this AfD, you ''will'' be subjected to administrative process for disruptive behavior. Thanks!--] 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== ] ==== | ==== ] ==== | ||
Revision as of 16:45, 21 July 2007
| < July 20 | July 22 > |
|---|
July 21
Template:Cod
This template is currently not used, and in 2006 July 26 it is stated that this template was to be deleted after substitution. — ✉ Hello World! 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Tpv4MrB
Not a useful template, several others are much more useful (i.e Template:uw-vandalism4, Template:Test4, Template:Bv — the list goes on....). Rlest 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Telnven
Delete (speedy if possible). Unused; purpose unclear; name is user-name. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Poland (no flag)
Delete Unused and redundant. — Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Allegations of apartheid
This non-standard template hinders the development of each article that is linked to it, by falsely claiming a link between only remotely related articles, when an article is debated others are automatically brought into the discussion, it would be better for the encyclopedia if it were deleted to allow each article to be renamed per consensus if required.. Bleh999 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Having been brought up in South Africa it is not difficult to spot Apartheid in the making all over the place. Discrimination generally occurs everywhere in subtle ways. Separateness was made nasty in South Africa because of the Apartheid Legislation. Can we make allegations of Apartheid about places where no Apartheid like legislation exists? Is social stratification Apartheid in the making? What about a list of countries with Apartheid like legislation?Gregorydavid 06:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Supersonic keep, and close Subjected to AfD on July 10, with discussion closing on July 18, less than four days ago. WP:DRV might be in order if you have concerns, since no consensus was reached, but this is a misuse of AfD.--Cerejota 06:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is debatable, there is no set policy or time frame for relisting a template for deletion, besides I didn't actually participate in the previous deletion request nor was I aware of it (if I had, you may have a point about abuse of TfD) Bleh999 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Common sense would dictate that, if a talk page exists, one would review it prior to nominating an article or template for deletion. It's not like it wasn't flagged with a link to the old TfD: . MrZaius 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is debatable, there is no set policy or time frame for relisting a template for deletion, besides I didn't actually participate in the previous deletion request nor was I aware of it (if I had, you may have a point about abuse of TfD) Bleh999 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Bleh999 is completely wrong.
WP:DELETE is absolutely clear on this point:
Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."
Less than four days after the previous AfD was closed is by no means a "reasonable amount of time".
This is a snowball issue, User:Bleh999 is in clear violation of deletion policy, and the correct procedure has been pointed out to him/her repeatedly. The re-opening of this AfD after a correct closing is also a violation of policy. I am re-closing and expect it to remain closed.
I will state one more time...
User:Bleh999: ] is your remedy if you disagree with the result of the previous AfD. If you remove the closing tags in this AfD, you will be subjected to administrative process for disruptive behavior. Thanks!--Cerejota 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Template:Scroll box
Worse than useless. Already banned from main article space because it causes usability issues. The Storm Surfer 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The template already states it should not be used in mainspace. Serves it's purpose mainly in (ironicly) template and user space to organize lists and data. --Edokter (Talk) 11:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, "banned" from mainspace does not imply that it should be "banned" elsewhere: only that it should continue to not be placed in mainspace. If we really want, the template can be userfied, in the same way that Template:Title was. (That one is currently at User:One/Title). No real harm in keeping this in template space, though. Gracenotes § 12:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Poor usability and accessibility. We owe our users better than this. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why it's not supposed to be used in articles. Gracenotes § 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This template isn't the problem - The printable css is. I was already filing a bug report with mediawiki to request that they strip overflow flags from printable output, across all wikis that use the common print css and all namespaces. Give it a month, eh? It's not like this is being used in Main space anymore and, equally importantly, removing this will just prompt users to drop in relatively hard to find <div> tags in its place, as they have already done in main space. Why bork user pages and lengthy quotes in the talk page when we can wait a while and get this fixed in all namespaces? MrZaius 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)