Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 27

< August 26	August 28 >

August 27

Template:Halton Arterial Roads

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) 03:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Halton Arterial Roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with one article (which is itself very likely to be deleted) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lightmouse (talk) 17:10, 1 September 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.

Template:Reverse6

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 move to {{reverse/6}}. Similarly for all other subroutines of {{reverse}}. The fate of the main template is under discussion. JIMp_talk·cont 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reverse6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. --JetBlast (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be used by Template:Reverse5 (which is used by Template:Reverse4, etc., Template:Reverse1 is used by Template:Reverse, which is used by other templates). Not sure why nothing shows up in what links here. Not that I can make any sense of these templates. TimBentley (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are correct. {{Reverse|pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis}} gives sisoinoconaclovociliscipocsorcimartluonomuenp. The method of reversing is simply to swop the first half and the last half of the word, then reverse each half. Mediawiki would detect a template loop, so each "level" requires a separate template. The number of levels is ample for likely strings that can be dealt with. Eventually this functionality, like similar templates will be replaced with something inherent in MW, either parser string functions, Lua, some php plu-in or the scripting module. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Just to confirm here, are we talking about the dleetion of all of these templates? Because I can't see any reason for any of them to exist on Wikipedia: as a programming task yes, but not of any obvious utility to the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No just about one component. And they are of some use, albeit limited. It's a utility template, part of its value is for actual use, part is to document the limitations of the template system so that people do not spend valuable time going down the same dead-ends. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  - If we are keeping {{reverse}}, the subroutines should be moved out of the main template space and into {{reverse}}'s subspace, i.e. {{reverse/1}}, {{reverse/2}}, {{reverse/3}}, etc. JIMp_talk·cont 16:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to {{reverse/6}}, and the corresponding other templates as well, per Jimp's suggestion. Debating {{Reverse}} itself is also a good idea, but we should open a new discussion and close this one. Otherwise, it's just too confusing. Note, see {{repeat}} for an example of a template which uses a similar trick to get around the lack of recurssion. Interestingly, that template is also nearly unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 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.

Template:Ricky Sprocket, Showbiz Boy

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) 03:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ricky Sprocket, Showbiz Boy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox only has two meaningful links: Ricky Sprocket: Showbiz Boy and List of Ricky Sprocket: Showbiz Boy episodes. I see no need to keep a navbox for two links, especially since the show is no longer in production. JaGa^talk 07:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Navboxes should be there to simplify complex navigation, not to make simple navigation complex. Lightmouse (talk) 17:13, 1 September 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.

Template:Kepler-4 and related one-planet star system navboxes

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) 04:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kepler-4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kepler-5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kepler-6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kepler-7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kepler-8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:KOI-428 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:GJ 3634 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WASP-43 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WASP-44 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See Talk:WASP-44/GA1 on the discussion between I and User:Quadell on the deletion of these templates, which are extraneous at best. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these are all extraneous. When there is exactly one planet orbiting a star, and each article (the planet and the star) prominently mentions the other (in both text and infoboxes), then there is no reason to have this navbox. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lightmouse (talk) 17:11, 1 September 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.

Template:Rock Hill, South Carolina Area

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) 04:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rock Hill, South Carolina Area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Page on which this was based was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Hill, South Carolina Area, per concerns this was WP:OR synthesis. Same concerns apply here--no credible evidence exists that these counties make up a metropolitan area. In truth, these counties are all part of the Charlotte metropolitan area (York is part of the main Charlotte metro, while Chester and Lancaster are part of the CSA). Blueboy 96 01:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lightmouse (talk) 17:11, 1 September 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.

Template:Portal icons

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) 04:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal icons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old and orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just because... (WHS) Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unused. exists only to promote certain portals.Curb Chain (talk) 04:00, 28 August 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.