Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 27
| < October 26 | October 28 > |
|---|
October 27
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Non-notable short video series featuring individual cricketers, the selection criteria for which are uncertain and unstated. Johnlp (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Entirely subjective list, created by one news agency. It's not as if we're short of objective criteria for templates and nav bars, most of these articles have multiple objective templates. —SpacemanSpiff 07:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to have been used to perpetuate a hoax article, which I unlinked after deleting the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (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) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The only instance was replaced with Template:Infobox choir. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2013 (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) 21:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Ryde Squad 2008 Cricket Under-15s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ryde Squad 2009 Cricket Under-15s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ryde Squad 2010 Cricket Under-15s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ryde Squad 2011 Cricket Under-15s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ryde Squad 2013 Cricket Under-15s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ryde Squad 2012 Cricket U-15s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template for non-notable junior cricket team in which only one of the named people has any form of proper link (and that appears to be untrue). Johnlp (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable teams used to perpetuate a hoax, which I unlinked after deleting the article. All templates unused. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2013 (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) 22:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:BullR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to {{br}}{{bull}}, and this sort of markup is discouraged per wp:accessibility since it does not generate proper list markup. better to simply indent your bullet lists properly. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete per nom. — Lfdder (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- [Who pray tell would use {{br}} vice <br/>??? OK, NOM is having a brain fart... {{br}} does not evaluate as <br/> so part-I of the given rationale doesn't apply at all]
However, For Pete's sake people! Since we pushed through parserFunctions (2005-06!) and proved they don't adversely load the server, you lot have gone to idiotic extremes of including them anywhere and everywhere, replacing perfectly good simple templates with some insane series of over complicated multipurpose kludges that are nightmares to modify. HERE YOU HAVE A TIME MULTIPLIER, a simple MACRO... but a time saver that actually makes it easier to see how a cascaded series of bulleted important points is edited, and one which makes a possibly complicated table element far easier to read, and you misconstrue it to violate this (para) condition (as it clearly DOES NOT):
Some introductory text... {{bull
}} Line 1 {{bullR
}} Line 2 {{bullR
}} Line 3 which makes this an extremely useful template...
- in Captions and inside tables. It conforms perfectly with keeping such lists nice and tight—AND as a single unordered list series (and should we really care if it looks right what the underlying code thinks it's supposed to build?), unlike the assumption the Nom made about how it is used and the further assumption about how it gets rendered.
- It is actually employed within an already indented para or inside such table elements, not free-form on the page.
- Wiki markup rendering would not insert extra lines per the noms thinking there in any case, unless some 'blank' line was given content above this such as by having on a line forcing a doublespaced line... as we called it when typewriters were common, word processors were tens of thousands of dollars, and no one but major companies had computers. (Yep, 1983!)
- Thirdly, note the format is NOT the same result as <br/>{{bull}}, as the spaces and codes pack differently—as the help of the template clearly says. The {{BullR}} ensures a line starts with a bullet and that it stays with it's object (per standard Jr. High English), and does not let the bullet separate and stay behind on the previous line in a string of elements (as {{Bull}} will... being designed for nav templates like a list of townships in Greater Philadelphia).
- That makes it useful in nav templates of all sorts... precisely when a new row/line is wanted to be forced, as it forces a new line in a table element, expanding the table element.
- Lastly, You all fling in confusing infoboxes right and left on virtually every page and pop up click nav boxes and want to claim this kind of typing-aid that helps editors keep things clear for others and presents things CLEAN AND CLEAR is ADVERSE? Not so. We need revisit the prohibitions against simple macro templates in general. I'd be a rich man everytime I wrote a ', Pennsylvania|some name' sequence this past month or two— an ISO coded {{US-PA|Tamaqua}} to generate Tamaqua could help all editing text be less confusing--and be far shorter as well as faster for us mere humans. (I tested a whole series of such names a month or so back on {{X1}}.) // FrankB 02:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this is better than a list and you're not addressing the accessibility issue. If you want to hide the default list styling, then wrap it inside {{plainlist}}:
{{plainlist|
*• 1
*• 2
*• 3
}}
- produces
- • 1
- • 2
- • 3
- But I don't see what the point of this is. — Lfdder (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete — Redundant and bad accessibility. --Izno (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2013 (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) 22:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The sole use of this navbox, all of whose entries are templates, is as (part of) documentation for the templates which are themselves listed in the navbox. This is overkill for a function that is perfectly well served by categories. It also messes up the "what links here" from each of its listed templates, and interferes with the normal collapsed/uncollapsed state of its host templates. NSH002 (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- further thoughts - the same disadvantages also apply to all the other members of Category:Navigational meta-templates, which probably ought to be considered along with this one as well. More annoying features: (a) they distract attention, which should be focused on the host navboxes (b) while editing they get in the way by cluttering up screen space. On the other hand some people have obviously spent time and effort developing them, and it seems a pity to lose them completely. Maybe just use
{{tl|name}}instead of calling it directly? Throwing this out for discussion. --NSH002 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete after replacing with {{Europe topic}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2013 (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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:JoeWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Used for links to a site that is not a reliable source and violates WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not sure why you started removing this template from G.I. Joe articles before a discussion had even taken place, but this template is part of the criteria at WP:GIJOE, including the conventions for all G.I. Joe articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's not actually a reason to oppose deletion, as it doesn't address the issue that the link (and so the template) should not be included in articles per Wikipedia-wide standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with {{Wikia}}. Aside from that, nominator should show how it violates ELNO. I would be skeptical if the link were being used as for an RS. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fails #1-2 (most pages are very short and/or problematic in this respect) and #11-12 (fansite, no substantial active editor base). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- keep, better to use a template here than {{wikia}} directly or a hard-coded EL. Obviously, if this has been blacklisted at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard then it should be removed and deleted, but I see no link to a discussion there. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (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) 21:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:NENAN and seems like a fancruft. The two artists were never a group and everything linked in the template can be found in Template: Jay-Z/Template: Jay-Z singles and Template: R. Kelly/Template: R. Kelly singles. STATic message me! 16:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Fitnr (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete arbitrary pairing, redundant to individual artists' templates. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:51, 2 November 2013 (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) 23:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Infobox reality talent competition. eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2013 (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) 21:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Sort table3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William 16:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2013 (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) 22:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Adecco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only has 3 links to companies other than Adecco itself. ...William 14:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails WP:NENAN. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2013 (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) 23:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Template:DEXO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only links to one article. ...William 11:17, 27 October 2013 (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) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
11 transclusions. Redundant to Template:Infobox company, which is also the main template for animation studios. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2013 (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) 21:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
This infobox was created four years ago but is used on only one article, Project Advance, and even there it's used as a normal table. Anything with more than three columns is probably too wide to be an infobox. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was useful at the time I created it - I can't remember in which article's I used it now!. Seems to have been superseded by newer templates. So long as current use can be edited to look the same, I've no objection to delete. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjones (talk • contribs)
- delete, replaced it here. Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2013 (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.