Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 4

< April 3	April 5 >

April 4

Template:Harriet Harman

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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harriet Harman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This appears to be of little or no benefit to the reader, are we to have templates for each and every politician? All the links (or almost all) are already linked in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inlcude Template:Peter Mandelson as well? ninety:one 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is no more useful than the now-deleted . –Rrius (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless and unnecessary. ninety:one 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pointless.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even more useless than Peter Mandleson's ShawnIsHere (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely useless; if some of the content isn't in the article, just move it to the article. We do not need a separate template for each person. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundantly links things already linked in the text. Airplaneman ✈ 00:09, 11 April 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:Multirow begin

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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multirow begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Multirow end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two uses, redundant with other column templates. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant and used on two or three articles. Replace with either {{Div col}} or {{multicol}} or the like, which are more widely used. Airplaneman ✈ 00:12, 11 April 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:Further reading

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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Further reading (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few uses; entirely redundant with {{Refbegin}} which has more features. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replacing with refbegin where appropriate (ie, where columns are actually needed, bearing in mind they only work in some browsers (afaik)). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{refbegin}} so there's no confusion about creating another template and change the current cases to use {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after replacing all occurrences with {{refbegin}}. Airplaneman ✈ 04:13, 11 April 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:Quang Binh

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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quang Binh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no sign of use.. ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphaned. Purpose now better served by {{Quang Binh Province}}, which is now used (instead of the above template) on the main article, Quang Binh Province. Airplaneman ✈ 04:19, 11 April 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:Quantum Frequency

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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quantum Frequency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, no sign of use, sitting since June 2008... ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it is orphaned. The article Quantum Frequency does not exist. Airplaneman ✈ 04:30, 11 April 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:Inuse-elapsed

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 Merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inuse-elapsed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:In use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Inuse-elapsed with Template:In use.
I propose to merge Inuse-elapsed into In use. In other words, to add the timestamp to In use. It is a useful function, and there is no need why the main template shouldn't have it. Debresser (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Less redundancy. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sometimes editors forget to remove this template.--Banana (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and add the features into {{In use}}. There's no need for a bot to replace all the transclusions of {{Inuse-elapsed}}; just use the same format (unless the formats are drastically different). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Airplaneman ✈ 04:34, 11 April 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:Italian people

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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As stated in a first nomination, there are a number of templates that make the cumbersome and ugly "Italian people" template redundant, from Template:Italian language to Template:Italian diaspora ecc. The original nomination was closed as 'keep' because of the votes of what were later revealed to be sockpuppets of blocked User:Brunodam. Deusdemona (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ma tu odi gli italiani, deusdemona! Cancellami pure, demonio malvagio, tanto "chi la dura la vince" alla lunga....il bene sempre finisce per vincere sul male, ricordatelo.--Sett19 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anzi, merda galleggia e oro affonda. ―AoV² 04:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant; purpose better served by Template:Italian diaspora. Airplaneman ✈ 04:37, 11 April 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.