Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25

Template:Ellipsis

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 April 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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) 23:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be a generally pointless template. Typing "{{ellipsis}}" generates exactly the same as typing "..." and uses 9 more keystrokes than the method recommended by WP:ELLIPSIS. AussieLegend (✉) 00:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's somewhat more useful now, and can be used in tables -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been improved by the IP, but I don't know if it is really very useful even with its new features. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding features nobody requested to a template nobody uses is not a productive use of editors' time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do we really need a template for ellipsis and other standard typographical punctuation? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment typing ⋮ is rather difficult without hunting for the Unicode codepoint. And while ⋯ is used in math, it isn't a standard ellipsis. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2013 (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:Ameen Rihani

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 reformat as an article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ameen Rihani (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one article on a work by this writer, so no need for a navbox. INeverCry 20:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but make sure it is in the article. or, repurpose this as a 'List of works by' article Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What harm does it do? I have been around Wikipedia for a long while, and we have used templates like these to connect and motivate new articles. Tfine80 (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles. The purpose of a navbox is to navigate between existing articles, not to motivate you or anyone else to write future articles. INeverCry 16:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful data table masquerading as a useless navbox. Reformat as a wikitable and substitute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat, then subst and delete per Chris Cunningham. This is not a navbox, because there is nothing in it to navigate to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify There's useful information here that would work well at Ameen Rihani bibliography, but it fails as a navbox. --BDD (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2013 (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.