Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 17

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — User:Piedras grandes has created a number of "Good article"/"Bad article templates" and started applying them willy-nilly. The "Good" ones overlap with WP:GA; the bad ones are, well, bad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete them all. Template:Good, Template:Bad, Template:Good Article, etc. Unhelpful, randomly applied spam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Good Article and Template:Bad Article were nothing but trasclusions of Template:Good and Template:Bad; I deleted them already. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a duplicate of work at WP:GA. Slambo (Speak) 21:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sycthos^Talk 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as randomly applied spam, and probably an NPOV violation. Stifle 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Angr (tɔk) 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:GA has that use covered, and saying an article is bad with no comment on how to improve it isn't helpful. Every specific cleanup template already does that better. - Bobet 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant with several other templates, traditions (e.g., featured article), and the fact that you're supposed to use the talk pages for stuff like this. --James S. 07:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete!--Urthogie 10:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per KillerChihuahua. Deadsalmon 16:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Basically all it is saying is "Don't vandalize this," which everyone should know already. -Xol 19:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle.Clarinetplayer 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find a use for it anywhere. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:18, Jan. 22, 2006
• Delete and BJAODN. --Kuroki Mio 2006 12:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Xol 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absolute crap--Wikipedian DOG 10:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's asking for trouble. CTRL+C --die Baumfabrik 08:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: yep, not useful. Avriette 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - took a look at some of the stuff that this guy has contributed and found myself rather revolted. — flamingspinach | (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — User:Piedras grandes has created a number of "Good article"/"Bad article templates" and started applying them willy-nilly. The "Good" ones overlap with WP:GA; the bad ones are, well, bad. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a duplicate of work at WP:GA. Slambo (Speak) 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sycthos^Talk 23:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• question why in gods name is there a picture of a horse?— Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)

• Delete per above. --Angr (tɔk) 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, same as above. - Bobet 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the implication of the template comes close to WP:NPA BillC 19:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant with several other templates, traditions (e.g., fallen featured articles), and the fact that you're supposed to use the talk pages for stuff like this. --James S. 07:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Deadsalmon 16:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but consider creating a Wikipedia:Bad articles project to keep track of articles that have serious problems and need improvement. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was tried in early December and deleted then. Slambo (Speak) 00:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bad:Template. No cookie. --Brokenfixer 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless. Punkmorten 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seriously, if it is that "bad" then the text should be removed and it should be a stub. Useless template. -Xol 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless. Clarinetplayer 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to MediaWiki:Sitenotice. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:21, Jan. 22, 2006
• Delete for reasons mentioned. - Akamad 09:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This template is bad. Mwahaha... Kareeser|^Talk! 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Xol 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ASR. This template is considered bad. Please help to delete it. Stifle 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's asking for trouble. CTRL+V --die Baumfabrik 08:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - rather worse than {{good}} o_O — flamingspinach | (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spelling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Redundant to {{copyedit}} and inconsistent style. Stifle 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Stifle. Sycthos^Talk 23:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I alredy no how too spell write on my own, don't need something to tell me how — Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)
• Delete per above. --Angr (tɔk) 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle. Deadsalmon 16:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Redundant, useless.--Dakota ~ ε 11:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal about the graphic, please see right below Gryffindor 03:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just redundant; if you spot bad spelling, correct it and move on. --die Baumfabrik 08:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spellingminor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Redundant to {{copyedit}} and inconsistent style. Stifle 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Don't really see a problem with this template, find it useful. what do others think? Gryffindor 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle. It is a less noticeable duplicate of {{copyedit}}. Sycthos^Talk 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not good practice - if you spot spelling errors you should change them yourself not tag the page for correction. —gorgan_almighty 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Angr (tɔk) 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gorgan. Lots of the cleanup templates are there for people who notice something wrong but can't fix it due to e.g. lack of time ({{cleanup-rewrite}}) or ability ({{cleanup-english}}). If you spot minor errors then they are quick to fix and you know how. Hairy Dude 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle and Gorgan. Deadsalmon 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal: the User seems to have put in effort to create the template. Maybe at least the graphic can at least be integrated into the existing copy-edit template? Gryffindor 19:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I agree with User:Gryffindor above. The graphic is good and copyedit has no graphic. Why not put this graphic in copyedit? Daniel Pritchard 05:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, it would be rather a pity I think, considering the graphic is quite neat and could help to identify the copyedit template on the article's page easier... Gryffindor 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just redundant; if you spot bad spelling, correct it and move on. CTRL+V --die Baumfabrik 08:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Useless (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Redundant to {{copyedit}}/{{cleanup-spam}}/{{nonsense}}, inconsistent style, and unable to be NPOV. Stifle 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See {{cleanup}}. Sycthos^Talk 00:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:BITE. Radiant_>|< 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Angr (tɔk) 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I think it may have a place, but nobody is using it unless they are subst:ed. --James S. 07:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle. Deadsalmon 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Use {{afd}} or {{cleanup-spam}} instead, or fix the article. Kusma (討論) 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. --Kuroki Mio 2006 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This template is {{useless}}. -Xol 23:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too tempting for those who will miss the soon-to-be deleted {{bad}} template. --die Baumfabrik 08:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused/orphan. Nothing links to it. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatlinkshere is broken... but the non-existent category only contains this template anyway. Delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Whatlinkshere only identifies this template in AfD. Sycthos^Talk 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. One of the myriad of US gov't public domain templates that probably should be condensed into one all-purpose tag. Deadsalmon 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Makesense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — An example of WP:BITE, I think. We already have {{confusing}} and {{cleanup-importance}} which appear to cover all bases. Stifle 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Stifle 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Stifle. Sycthos^Talk 00:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironically this template is patent nonsense, and should be added to itself, also, terrible picture— Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)
• Keep. I agree that {{confusing}} gets the point across fine. I enjoy, though, using this template on my user page, just for fun...maybe we could move it to the userboxes section. bcatt 06:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you can/should subst it to your user page :) Stifle 11:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also, the author shouldn't need to "clarify their position" - since articles should be NPOV, there should be no position. --Aleron235 23:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle; borders on WP:NPA. Deadsalmon 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, it's completely redundant. Paul Carpenter 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. {{confusing}} is much better. -Xol 19:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Use {{confusing}} or {{afd}} instead, or fix the article. Kusma (討論) 15:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's very confusing. Deskana (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you doubt the need for this template, just look at EDHF, currently in need of wikification: this article needs clarification and the {{confusing}} template doesn't give a strong enough message. I agree that it hints ever so slightly at WP:BITE, mind you. I reckon that it works best with {{wikify}}, as a supplementary appeal. --die Baumfabrik 08:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Looks like people need to talk about how/where to redirect/merge to. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Badbio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundnat clutter. If something deserves this tag, then it deserves deletion, in which case this tag serves no person. It's not like "verify", or cleanup tags, which give direction as to what somebody can do to fix an article. If we wish to give advice to the creator about where to go, we should do so on their talk page, and not have this which is seen by all our readers, who must wander why keep aricles that don't belong. Rob 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It can be placed on the user's talk page if desired. Stifle 11:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How about removing the ambiguity from the wording so that this template is only used for talk pages (and instead references the article in question). I liked {{notability}} except for it being too general, so I just made {{bio-notability}}. What do you think about that one? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 13:22Z
• Keep and reword. Only allow this to be used on Talk pages. —gorgan_almighty 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as redundant. We have {{nn-bio}} for the page, and {{nn-warn}} for the creator's talk page. Radiant_>|< 16:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to {{nn-warn}}. That already has all the information needed, no need for a merge. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless. We have templates covering that information, and most users would immediately propose AfD instead. Also, I do not understand why you want to redirect {{badbio}}. When that template becomes unused, nobody would use the name of that template. Sycthos^Talk 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• New policy/guidelines I agree that in this state this template doesn't work that great. But by just warning people that have already written a nn-bio we're just treating the sympotoms not the real issue. I really think that we need to make it clearer that there are other options if people want to have their biographical information done wiki-style. The system as it is is obviously not working as nn-bios are ones of the biggest time drains the site has to deal with. This template and the "linkspam" that someone so deftly deleted was attempting to deal with that bigger issue. At least that's what I remember about it's inception. --Wotwu 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That is a really ugly template, if kept, can it be made.. you know, less ugly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by name (talk • contribs)
• Delete - redundant with {{nn-warn}} Renata 06:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Angr (tɔk) 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The template is not redundant to {{nn-warn}}, which implies an impending speedy deletion. Stifle 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Revert to the version which quotes the Wikime and Wikitree projects and add a <noinclude> note to say - put on the user talk page (now that anon new articles are banned). I always like to be positive, rather than saying "we don't want your bio", it is better to tell them what they can do with it. -- RHaworth 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree: it is better to have a constructive tag that also explains where they can go instead, than the "this article sucks" tag directed at administrators. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-19 08:49Z
  • Comment - The 10 November version would work better as a replacement for {{nn-warn}} rather than {{badbio}} — it would be appropriate on talk pages, but not articles (and non-notable bios should be put up for speedies or AfD anyway).
• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing with this tag should survive the WP:AfD pages. -Xol 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RHaworth, this was a VERY useful tag to add to a userpage when you userfy a biography mistakingly created in the article namespace. --W.marsh 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wishy-washy, lukewarm, dull. --die Baumfabrik 08:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN. This appears only to apply to this template. Right? -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4LA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Rarely used template to be removed, see strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA poll. Orphaning in progress. Category:Ambiguous four-letter acronyms can be removed at the same time. William Allen Simpson 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom Tedernst | talk 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and note that the correct term is "ETLA". Radiant_>|< 11:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: please be aware that because of recent changes, the "What links here" lists for these templates are woefully inaccurate. Premature deletion is likely to result in a large number of broken articles. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Slark 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and redirect to {{disambig}} TreyHarris 03:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not be prudent, as it would violate several existing guidelines. These are not disambiguation pages. Like {{shipindex}}, the attempt to treat them as the same resulted in serious structural problems. And like shipindex, the preferred solution is to replace with another template and category, in this case {{4LC}}. I've been working on that as part of the orphaning process. --William Allen Simpson 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While the nomination has been withdrawn, the notice still exists on the template. This should be kept as it isn't harming anything, and it is presently being used correctly in places. Seen HANE. Avriette 15:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator: Some are disputing the orphaning procedure, and progress is suspended until resolution of this issue. --William Allen Simpson 23:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. All the available tests (WLH, Google with site:en.wikipedia.org and searching for {{5LA}}) find no usages. Someone will shout at me if it isn't actually an orphan... -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:5LA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Rarely used template to be removed, see strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA poll. Hopefully, already orphaned. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms can be removed at the same time. William Allen Simpson 02:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom Tedernst | talk 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and note that the correct term is "DETLA". Radiant_>|< 11:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: please be aware that because of recent changes, the "What links here" lists for these templates are woefully inaccurate. Premature deletion is likely to result in a large number of broken articles. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. There doesn't appear to be a withdrawal of this nomination. -Splash^talk 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LND (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Rarely used LetterNumberDisambiguation, related templates to be removed, see strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#TLA poll. Hopefully, already orphaned. William Allen Simpson 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom Tedernst | talk 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: please be aware that because of recent changes, the "What links here" lists for these templates are woefully inaccurate. Premature deletion is likely to result in a large number of broken articles. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware that not only am I aware of this issue, I've actively discussed it at Village Pump (technical) and the See# templates currently in the Holding cell Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#To orphan are all my TfD that I check daily for new links. Thank you. --William Allen Simpson 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you: it's nice to know there's a safe pair of hands somewhere. —Phil | Talk 09:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • pages that use LND -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.