Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29

Template:Derefer

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) 01:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template utilizes services that by definition have been, or will be, blocked by the spam blacklist, since they allow users to bypass the blacklist's checks via a different domain name. Indeed, after the service it used most recently was blacklisted, it now does nothing more than putting a plain external link in place. Using a different service just delays the inevitable, and when the new service gets blacklisted again sooner or later suddenly all pages transcluding this template will become uneditable due to the spam filter (this has already happened once: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 March 25#Unable to get rid of "cite error" message) until someone figures out that this apparently innocuous template is responsible. Subst and delete. Any specific URLs that actually require derefering should go through the whitelist. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's only about 6 articles using it, so fixing those up should be trivial. It causes complicated headaches, and doesn't help much; whitelist is the better option - not circumventing it. Chzz ► 21:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In theory, it would be possible for someone to make a derefer service for Wikipedia that respects the spam blacklist. In practice, this is used so little, the whitelist is easier. Mr.Z-man 01:27, 30 March 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:Climbing Terms

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) 01:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Climbing Terms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not entirely sure what the intent was for this template, which adds the hatnote "This article uses climbing terms to describe the sport of rock climbing" to an article, with a wikilink to Climbing Terminology--an unverified list which by now I've merged to Glossary of climbing terms (following a suggestion on the talk page). The wikilink to an article on climbing terminology is easily made in the article; there is no need for this hatnote. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one made me laugh. Wikipedia needs a hatnote message informing users that they're about to read climbing terms just as much as this page needs one that reads "Welcome to templates for discussion where templates are being discussed." --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you admire my straight face. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hardly think this template would be usefull. Adding Glossary of climbing terms to the See also section would be more suitable. Maimai009 11:38, 31 March 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:Ajda Pekkan

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) 01:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ajda Pekkan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only one link alive, this navigation box doesn't navigate anything Muhandes (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless. Almost all links it contains already are on the topic page. Maimai009 11:28, 31 March 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:Scv-csd

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) 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scv-csd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This comment-template has not gained much consensus or use around WP:SCV to remain valid in this namespace any longer. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hardly used and redundant to {{SCV|speedy}}. — Bility (talk) 18:45, 11 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.

Template:IDU

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) 01:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template will have absolutely no use in the forseeable future. It appears to be almost a dictionary definition, only created in template space rather than article space. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete templatespace is not for boilerplates. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No scope for use. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as test edits--consider also the other edits made by this editor, which indicate that this probably was a test by someone who didn't rightly know what templates are (took me a while to figure out too!). Drmies (talk) 19:30, 29 March 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:Sign

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) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant, hardcoded copy of Template:Uw-tilde, which is part of the standardized User warning templates. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 11 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.