Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 19

April 19

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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{cubes}} Not a useful navbox. There aren't enough legitimate cube articles to justify the navbox, and the other articles are just things that happen to be cubes - they have no other relation to justify linking. JaGatalk 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the revised navbox.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another editor has added substantial content, and I shall do the same this weekend. As I mentioned before, there are many cubes lurking throughout mathematics, e.g. in harmonic analysis, measure theory (e.g., Menger's sponge), coding theory & discrete metric spaces (Hamming metric).
The NavBox has been substantially revised. The pop-cultural cubes now have less prominence, and cubes of toys/puzzles and art (Ann Arbor's Cube) have been added.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion for a rewrite has been followed.
Please review the revised template.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed it, and my opinion is still for delete, for the same reason. The same reasons apply: no reader will be well-served by a navbox of random cube-related stuff. Who would avail themselves of convenient links between Rubik's Cube, Cubism, and Cesium Chloride? The idea is ridiculous. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the box to have Penrose tilings and quasi-crystals, linking mathematics, art, and chemistry (again). BTW, I should inform you that the puzzle section is mostly a selection from a navbox on Rubik's cube.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Especially considering that's my line! Resigned to my fate,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:54, 22 April 2011 (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.
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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other than the nom being a likely sock, this template is useless in that typing out "#'''Support''' ~~~~" doesn't take long at all, but this template encourages drive-by votes/votes without rationales. Even though it's in support of someone, we shouldn't be using templates so people can be lazy and not be bothered to write a little extra comment when they would have without the template. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:00, 19 April 2011 (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.