Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 25

< December 24	December 26 >

December 25

Template:Matthew "Baby face" Johnson, Canadian Boxer and Business owner

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 speedy delete as G11. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matthew "Baby face" Johnson, Canadian Boxer and Business owner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template but a copy of article text. (Didn't fall under any speedy criteria as I understand them.) Danger (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity edits by user I blocked as spam-only. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Congress Freshman Members

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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Congress Freshman Members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant and only contains one redlink. No transclusions Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to what? DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The template only has one redlink on it, which also matches the name of the template, and absolutely nothing else. I call G2, A1 and/or A3. If nothing else, speedy delete through WP:IAR; no reason at all for this to slog its way through TFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:22, 26 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Freshman Members of Congresses

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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freshman Members of Congresses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant and only contains one redlink. No transclusions. . Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to what? I agree we do not need both this and the one above, but what is wrongwith having one of them, or can you suggest a better wording? DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The template only has one redlink on it, which also matches the name of the template, and absolutely nothing else. I call G2, A1 and/or A3. If nothing else, speedy delete through WP:IAR; no reason at all for this to slog its way through TFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:23, 26 December 2010 (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 section.

Template:Too many categories

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 no consensus. I do sense a feeling by some that the template has potential but needs to be significantly repositioned. Interested editors may wish to consider going to the template's talk page in order to discuss how to handle this template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Too many categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Is there such a thing as having too many categories?! I can't find any policies or guidelines which state this. We should be encouraging editors too add categories, not encouraging deleting them. Mhiji (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are people who add articles to a category, and every one of the category's parents, up to the fundamental level... but that should be handled by a different template. 65.93.12.65 (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a cleanup message about the need for category sorting might be what this is supposed to be. 65.93.12.65 (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not too common a situation, but still useful template. I recall a user at #wikipedia-en-help asking if there's a template that serves this exact purpose, so there are occasions where it can be used. Also, funny how you can say it's "Unused", right after removing one instance where it WAS used. -- œ ^™ 12:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful cleanup category--a template we should be using considerably more often--I do not think the situation is all that uncommon. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Articles should generally be in the most specific category in a given category branch or tree. It's possible for an article to be in both general and specific categories unnecessarily. Then this template is useful. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although Mhiji is right that the text of this template is poor. It should be rewritten to state that the categorization needs review for efficiency. There's nothing wrong with lots of correct and appropriate categories. --Bsherr (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for that reason, to Template:Recategorize. --Bsherr (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that if it's not deleted, it definitely needs to be reworded and renamed. Mhiji (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only used in one article currently. In addition, it is appropriate for some articles to be included in a long list of categories, such as Barack Obama or CSX Transportation. Dough 48 72 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dough How many categories a particular article should have is entirely subjective and depends on the article. If a user believes there are too many categories on a particular article, that can be raised on the article's talk page. YardsGreen (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2010 (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 section.