Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7

edit

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1978

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. I can't do anything about the other templates without them actually going through the TFD process, but that's fine if someone wants to nominate them. delldot ∇. 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penthouse Pets of 1978 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with only one working link, therefore useless as navigational device. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 7 June 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:South Korea squad 2007 U-20 World Cup

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Korea squad 2007 U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Many discussion at WP:Footy say that youth tournament templates should not be created. GoPurple'nGold24 22:39, 7 June 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:Infobox2

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused fork of {{infobox}} which is too limited to offer any significant advantage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 8 June 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:Related

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect to {{see also2}}. delldot ∇. 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Related (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 21 tranclusions in the five years that this has existed; nonstandard way of linking to related articles. {{see also2}} provides a much more common and backwards-compatible solution, and this template should be redirected there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 7 June 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:Gfr soldier-activist pic

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gfr soldier-activist pic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) [has been blanked for reasons outlined below – please see the original version to pass judgement]

This template was created with a note saying: "The template makes it harder for those people to change; only those that know of the template and how to change it can change it." But we don't use templates to make editing more difficult and to enforce our own position in a content dispute, which, for the record, I have no position on at all. The fact that this template contains (in an obfuscated way, albeit) a non-free image in clear breach of Criterion 9 simply compounds the issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The template will always be a single use template, and was created for the wrong reasons. How to solve the problem has been explained to the interested parties. The template is not needed, and violates Wikipedia:Template namespace guideline where it says templates "should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 7 June 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:Infobox Pretenders

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pretenders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was being used to format individual to pretender templates (see Category:Pretender templates). The templates were mostly being used as footer navigation panels, but the formating was for a sidebar. I started to try to fix this problem by modifying this template, but found it much easier to just change all the individual templates to use {{navbox}}. Hence, this meta-template is now orphaned and no longer needed. I was going to contact the original author, but he/she has not edited here since 2008. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:53, 7 June 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:Link2

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is basically redundant to simple wiki markup for linking, or to {{tl}}, {{tlx}}, {{tls}}, ... One of the primary reason, it appears, is to use the redirect {{2}}. However, there are a few major problems with this idea. First is that there was already a template named {{2}}, which was previously deleted, and there are still a few residual links hanging about (although I believe I was able to fix most of them). Second is that a common error in template programming is to forget a brace, and hence typing {{{2}} or {{2}}} would transclude this template, rather than producing a more obvious redlink. Third is that there is already a {{0}} template, which is used to pad numbers. Inexperience editors think that they way to add a number is to change the 0 to a 1, 2, or 3. Hence, I just finished fixing dozens of transclusions of this template on Football pages. I believe the common use of {{0}} should be discouraged, but until then, it's better to leave this as a redlink so that they can be spotted. Or, perhaps redirect all simple numeric templates to some error message, and put it in a maintenance category so that these can be cleaned up. However, that's for another discussion. My objection to the template is a bit weak in comparison to my objection to the use of the redirect, however, I don't feel the redirect is particularly useful either. In particular, the majority of the transclusions appear to be replaceable by {{tlx}} or [[example]]. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 7 June 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:Link3

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 17:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is basically redundant to {{url}} or {{link}}. The primary reason, it appears, is to use the redirect {{3}}, which would allow allows the saving of "3 characters" in typing a URL. However, there are a few major problems with this idea. First is that there are bots which remove additions of blacklisted links, and the addition of yet another external linking template is yet another thing the bot has to look for. Second is that a common error in template programming is to forget a brace, and hence typing {{{3}} or {{3}}} would transclude this template, rather than producing a more obvious redlink. Third is that there is already a {{0}} template, which is used to pad numbers. Inexperience editors think that the way to add a number is to change the 0 to a 1, 2, or 3. Hence, I just finished fixing dozens of transclusions of this template on Football pages. I believe the common use of {{0}} should be discouraged, but until then, it's better to leave this as a redlink so that they can be spotted. Or, perhaps redirect all simple numeric templates to some error message, and put it in a maintenance category so that these can be cleaned up. However, that's for another discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 7 June 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:Uw-db template removing

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-db template removing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Terribly worded, but in my attempts to decipher I realized that the template actually appears to go against established practice. The only time one can't remove a speedy template is if you created the article yourself. Otherwise, anyone can decline a speedy. Only admins can delete one, but anyone can decline one. There is a CSD template removal warning available that states the policy correctly, however, this is not it. Also, unlike the documentation says, it is not used in Twinkle. mono 00:08, 7 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_7&oldid=1146661935"