The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Bazj (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nobot → Template:Bots

Redirect should be deleted because most bots will not recognize "nobot" they look for "nobots". Thus it could erroneously lead to people using this and unwanted bots still touching the page. –xeno^talk 16:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I wrote a rationale for ((db)) to put on the redirect, but xeno edit conflicted me. So I'll paste it here, it gives useful background:

  ((bots)) and ((nobots)) are part of the voluntary bot exclusion system; in particlar, placing ((nobots)) on a page tells compliant bots that they should not edit that page. This has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of either template, compliant bots just search the page's wikitext for the specific text "((bots))" or "((nobots))" (or the same with certain parameters as specified in the template documentation). Since "((nobot))" (without the "s") is not one of these two special names, bots should and will completely ignore it. But the existence of the redirect can confuse users into thinking it would work, as happened in the case leading to this discussion, so this redirect should be deleted.

  This may fall under G6, or could be interpreted as a "redirect to an invalid target" under G8 since redirecting to that target does not serve the intended purpose. Anomie⚔ 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW I don't mind this being speedied, but I figured since it's been in place since 2007 there's no big rush. Someone should go through and replace the current usages beforehand though.  Done –xeno^talk 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete If it doesn't do what its name implies, and there's nothing on the talk page to explain what it's intended to do, it should be tidied away asap. Bazj (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wtf → Template:Fact

Inappropriate and potentially bitey redirect for ((fact)). Jafeluv (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ((db-g4)) per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 5. Bazj (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) speedy declined[reply]
• Delete 1-inappropriate; 2-unnecessary tla. Bazj (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Likely to be seen as bitey by most. Tags should be objective, especially when disputatious. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inappropriate (per Ningauble) and potentially confusing (not all editors will be familiar with the TLA). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vulgar and unnecessary. ChrisDHDR 10:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.