Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 23
| < October 22 | October 24 > |
|---|
October 23
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 Speedy delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Template:OLGA-LEDNICHENKO-LOOKS-LIKE-KATRINA-KAIF- (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and unuseful. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 04:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Template:City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Per discussion here, here and here, seperate links to both city and state are regarded as a case of WP:OVERLINK. Concensus favours a single and simpler link such as [[Kennewick, Washington]] rather than [[Kennewick, Washington|Kennewick]], [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]]. This had been a redirect to {{city-state}} (also at Tfd) until reverted a few months ago. PC78 (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Replace with [[Kennewick, Washington|Kennewick]] instead. It would take two parameters and spit out one displayed. That would not overlink, and would make the link better, as it only links the term that needs linking, instead of two terms. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's unnecessary piping if you're going to name the state after the city anyway. PC78 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I say we delete this template as well (as cit-state). There just unnecessary. --Kumioko (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Replace and delete with the
[[Kennewick, Washington]]form; if anyone really doesn't understand what the state reference means (which is plausible), they'll just find it via the article in question instead. (Probably the easiest way to implement this is to edit the template, then subst it, then delete.) --ais523 13:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC) - subst and delete less than 100 uses. I'm agnostic as to wether it should be Kennewick, Washington or just Kennewick. The template only saves a few key strokes and makes the page slightly less obvious as to what will be rendered. I'd leave the choice of forms to the individual page editors, but if need be the template could be changed to short form before the subst.--Salix (talk): 23:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.