Last modified on 14 July 2014, at 18:27

Template talk:Bad name

Return to "Bad name" page.
Fairytale Trash Questionmark No.svg

This template was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2011 but was kept.
The deletion debate is here. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.


العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | +/−

Keep the Consistency (Change the layout)Edit

Dear Administrators,

Why don't you change the layout in order to keep the consistency with Speedy Request {{Speedydelete}} and Copyvio {{Copyvio}}?

Please refer to {{Bad name/ja}}

Followings are very smal things, though...

  • Deletion Guidelines : ALL languages don't have to be shown. User can click "Language Changer Bar" at the bottom.
  • Be more clearly: UPPER Messages are for READERs, Middle are for Maintenance Staff, and LOWER Messages are for ADMINs without mixing up.
  • Explain the usage simply: The explanation should be OUTSIDE of the main box. The main Message Box is automatically shown on all tagged pages; Whom is it for? Without making READERs confused, Admins or People helping maintenance can come to check the Usage details here.

What do you think? --SantaClaus 09:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

SummaryEdit

Please can I propose adding a section similar to template:duplicate which gives a summary which can easily be pasted when deleting. This would eliminate a very tedious task. Lcarsdata 09:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Badname -> Bad nameEdit

Although the templates is "bad name", the text and the translations still mention the old name "badname". Should be fixed, for consistency sake. — Xavier, 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Michelet-密是力 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, template redirects work fine...I don't think it's necessary to change the name everywhere, but eh. It's not that important either way. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If you look carefully, I did not change it everywhere. I changed the name mostly in the documentation, not in the Image: namespace or in talk pages, where the redirect engine works fine, indeed. After all, if you, at Commons, felt the need to rename the template, why not document it and encourage users to use the new name ? Just a matter of consistency. — Xavier, 10:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, I didn't rename it...?
Selective updating is a good idea, I didn't realise that. thanks. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Edit

The line at the bottom should be changed to:

(Administrators: Delete this image)

for clarity. 68.39.174.238 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} for template modificationEdit

Hi everyone! I modified the template to hide the image param value when isn't available. I hope this helps. Check it at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Enc_Company_Agent/sandbox

Best regards,

--Enc Company Agent 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tweaks to the templateEdit

Is this the only template that is available for tagging items for speedy deletion? If so, I suggest that the wording of the template is tweaked so that it doesn't just refer to "files" but also to pages and categories. If no one has any objections to this, I'll go ahead and do so. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just realized that "{{speedydelete}}" exists for that purpose. I've created a documentation page for this template which mentions "{{copyvio}}" and "{{speedydelete}}". Have I missed out any? Ideally, there should be a single documentation page explaining all the different speedy deletion tags so that at a glance editors can decide which is the best one to use. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion, see Commons:Deletion#Speedy_deletion. At Template_talk:Category_redirect, I have suggested creating a separate template for badly named categories (e.g. {{bad cat name}}). Superm401 - Talk 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker commandsEdit

Are the CommonsDelinker commands suggested by this template correct? See for example Image:103-0388 IMG.jpg, if I add {{universal replace|103-0388 IMG.jpg|Image:Colosseum kino.jpg|reason=(incorrectly named) duplicate}} to User:CommonsDelinker/commands I get the following:

CommonsDelinker: Replace File:103-0388 IMG.jpg with File:Image:Colosseum kino.jpg across all Wikimedia projects. Reason: (incorrectly named) duplicate

Isn't “Image:Image:Colosseum kino.jpg” incorrect? --Kjetil_r 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This bothers me too. Can someone knowledgeable rectify this or add an explanation to the template doc page? Thanks. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sort-of fixed... you just have to use the template like {{bad name|Someimage.ext}} rather than {{bad name|Image:Someimage.ext}}. However, I'm not sure what this will do to old usages. Revert me if it's a problem.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The documentation needs to be fixed as well. It is still telling editors to type {{bad name|Image:Someimage.ext}}. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've left a messge for Betacommand since the problems seem to orginate in the tag left by the renaming bot. /Lokal_Profil 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I'll put my AWB bot on changing {{bad name|Image: --> {{bad name| . However I think that the syntax in Template:Duplicate might also be wrong. /Lokal_Profil 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Computer is missbehaving so the bot edits will have to wait. /Lokal_Profil 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understood, the problem was not with this template (bad name) but with the universal replace one. It only accepts images without the "image" prefix, since it adds it automatically. This was dealt with, here on template:bad name, by providing an ifexist check. I don't understand why it was removed ([1]) since it used to give the correct syntax either with the "image:" prefix or not, and now if I write {{bad name|image:something}} it will give me the incorrect syntax (hence the need of bot-made changes to all usages this way). I think the removal of that ifexist (as shown in the diff I provide above) should be undone, and a similar one should even be added to {{universal replace}} to prevent humans or bots to use it with the wrong syntax, by supporting both of them. --Waldir talk 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be the ideal solution, but we would need to make sure CommonsDelinker will still understand {{universal replace}} if we change it. Rocket000(talk) 19:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I

Why not redirect?Edit

Is there a reason why this template is just not a redirect to {{duplicate}}? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, this template is mainly used for tagging categories with a bad name, providing as parameter the correct name. "exact or scaled down copy" in the deletion summary would not be very correct. --Foroa (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
But on all help pages it is explained it should be used for files. If it was used on categories it would be converted to "move" like "rename" is anyway. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It is mostly referenced from documentation pages in templates. It seems mostly used for deletion of categories that have been moved before to new categories. To the best of my knowledge, there is no template that could replace it. --Foroa (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

First of "speedydelete" is meant for categories. //I would like to deprecate "bad name" since it does not make sense to have two templates for the same purpose. Thus:

"bad name" should display a message of deprecation; if added to a file should redirect to "duplicate" if added to something else redirect to "speedydelete" and categorize into the corresponding categories. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Disagree (except for the fact that the template was originally intended for file moves). It took me years to teach people not to blank categories and to insert the bad name template. Yesterday, when you changed the template to deprecated, there where 86 categories pending for deletion. The nice thing about the template is that is very easy to insert and the category is deleted in 2 clicks, while having a click-able edit summary in the edit summary. At least, people can find out easily whet the new name of he category is. The handling of speedy delete cats takes easily 2 to 4 times more work and checking. --Foroa (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
An example here]: 25 % of the deletions where through the bad name template. --Foroa (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please unblock so that we can get rid of the redundant strucutre for file deletes. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Text link "Löschen" wird nicht richtig dargestelltEdit

Ist zwar nur ein minor error aber in der Deutschen Version wird der Textlink zum Löschen mit Zahlreichen Sonderzeichen gesät.--Sanandros (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

When using this template with a category, if the new category hasn't been created, it says "a correctly named duplicate category exists at:" followed by a link, but without the Category: prefix. I would expect to be able to click on it and create the new category, but this puts it in the wrong namespace. Peter James (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad names are for obsolete empty categories, otherwise use {{Move}}. --Foroa (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Null editEdit

{{editprotected}} In Category:Pages_with_script_errors for some reason. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done whym (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

please add to category:deletion templatesEdit

{{edit request}} please add to category:deletion templates--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. However, next time please do it yourself. Whenever you see a template using {{Documentation}}, you can assume that it is desired that everyone is able to edit the /doc subpage. -- Rillke(q?) 18:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)