|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | This page is for nominating any article suspected of being unsuitable for this wiki to be delete. Please submit the name of the article you wish to see deleted under a new section by doing <nowiki>===[[Name of article]]===</nowiki>. | | This page is for nominating any article suspected of being unsuitable for this wiki to be delete. Please submit the name of the article you wish to see deleted under a new section by doing <nowiki>===[[Name of article]]===</nowiki>. |
| | | | |
| − | ===[[Jade Goody]]=== | + | ==Nominations== |
| − | :''Consensus - keep''.
| + | *No articles are currently up for deletion, please see the archives below. |
| − | | |
| − | *I just don't find this funny. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC) | |
| − | *I do. [[User:Reams|Charlie]] 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| − | **I'd still like this to be deleted, but it's currently 1-1. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | *1 'stay' vote. The punchline alone swings it. And it's not like genuine guest pages are serious autobiographies. Nebagram 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===[[:Category:Recaps with missing or incomplete Teatime Teasers]]===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Alright, personally I'm not a big fan of TTTs although I think they are good for recaps, but do we really need this category? Especially with precisely one article in it? TTTs are not actually part of the game, they're part of the ad break. I suppose we're gonna start doing transcripts of the DC guest's piece as well? Still, I remain open to other arguments. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 08:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Agreed it's probably the least important part of a recap, but nevertheless TTTs do form part of the programme and a lot of people do like them. I've a whole store of TTTs in my papers somewhere, and am much more likely to add them to existing recaps if there is a category such as this. OK, having only one entry shows it's not being used, but in my case at least I was not aware of the category until just now and in future will probably add items as I see them. I think it should stay, and maybe with it being known about, more entries will be added - might prove to be a cure for insomnia one night soon. [[User:Drawoh|drawoh]] 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::I'm certainly not against TTTs being added, but right now we'd have to populate the category, then add the TTTs back. Wouldn't it be quicker just to add the TTTs directly and forget the category? Things like [[:Category:Partial recaps]] were generated by Dumper, it would take a human being a f-cking long time to do all that. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 13:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::: If you can find a record of full details of every TTT since they started, then go ahead and fill them all in. If you can't, then of course this category should stay. Moreover, why do you think tasks 2 and 3 in [[Countdown talk:Recap checking project#TTT problems|this proposal]] are impossible? -- [[User:Smjg|Smjg]] 20:06, 26 April 2009 (BST)
| |
| − | :::You seem to have missed the point; the category is basically empty, wouldn't it be quicker just to add the TTTs rather than add them to this category, add the TTTs and then take them out again. It adds two extra steps without any benefits, and therefore slows down the process of adding TTTs rather than accelerating it. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 18:11, 1 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::: No, you've missed the whole point of the category's existence:
| |
| − | ::::* Not all TTTs are easily findable at the moment, but may become findable in the future.
| |
| − | ::::* A bot may (and indeed, should) be programmed to file episodes in this category if the TTT info couldn't be found for whatever reason. There's no way that a bot can be made to just add the TTT info if it was either missing from the recap or in a format that the bot couldn't parse.
| |
| − | :::: If it were purely for humans to go through filing episodes whose TTTs are readily available in order to add them straight off, then what ''would'' be the point? -- [[User:Smjg|Smjg]] 00:21, 8 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| − | :::::I don't think I'd missed the point, you just hadn't said that yet, so '''keep'''. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 00:19, 22 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | | | |
| | == See also == | | == See also == |
| | *'''[[Countdown:Articles for deletion/Archives]]''' | | *'''[[Countdown:Articles for deletion/Archives]]''' |
| | [[Category:Countdown:Maintenance|Deletion]] | | [[Category:Countdown:Maintenance|Deletion]] |
