Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 23

June 23

edit
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).

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. No one is making any arguments that this template is doing a poor job of adding pages to Category:Redirects from Twitter usernames, or an argument that we shouldn't be using a template for populating this category. TFD isn't an appropriate venue for category discussion, since it potentially attracts a different crowd. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 25 for a deletion discussion for the category, and please remember to comment only on the idea of having a category for these redirects, since comments about the redirects themselves are irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from Twitter usernames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Posting this for deletion per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Mass creation of Twitter username redirects and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Twitter accounts as redirects. I am neutral in this discussion (though I am the creator) and am posting this discussion to prevent further discussion forks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(@Drmies, There'sNoTime, Dlohcierekim, Godsy, Paine Ellsworth, Kusma, Onel5969, Compassionate727, Legacypac, Davey2010, Wumbolo, and R64Q: Pinging all involved editors thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Yes, of course, if people know a person's or company's Twitter username, they would probably expect to be taken to an article about the person or company, and that's precisely where they would be taken. And what extra effort? It takes no more effort to type the @ sign than it does to type a capital letter or an asterisk. Anybody used to a keyboard would type in the @ sign as semi-consciously as they type in the C and K in Clark Kent, wouldn't they?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:41, 24 June 2018 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive templating, very few items to link. Since when do we have boxes for nominees in only one Oscar category for only one year? Ribbet32 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2018 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one page, doesn't really serve a purpose Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2018 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 July 1. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2018 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template has not been used in a very long time, has 0 non-demo transclusions, and the category it populates has been empty for a long time.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely no reason for why this couldn't be used again. That old problems have been cleaned up is no reason to make future problems impossible to flag. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 23 June 2018 (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).