Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 27

June 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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox POC-PSC PNG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to {{Infobox sport tournament}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2015 (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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox company network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Alakzi (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (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 no consensus. But, please do continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

An ugly CSS hack, the purpose of which is to reduce the leading of multi-line infobox and navbox labels for aesthetic reasons. Should the leading need to be adjusted, that ought to be done in one of our stylesheets. Alakzi (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary hack. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now, I would like to see a wider discussion (say at Mediawiki talk:Common.css) first. it's clear to me that we could make a 'longitem' class, and then use <div class="longitem"> ... </div>. however, if we did that, this would become a wrapper. if (1) the position is that we never need to override the default line-spacing, then fine, this template can go, but it would be good to have a wider discussion. if (2) the position is that we can magically remove the need for this template with a change to the common style sheet, I would like to see that first. since, it's not clear to me that you could achieve the same result with such a simple change. Note, there is also {{longlink}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template had only one transclusion that has been easily converted to {{ChoralWiki}}, which everyone uses (1040 transclusions). Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2015 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template had only one transclusion that has been easily converted to {{ChoralWiki}}, which everyone uses (1040 transclusions). Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2015 (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 relisted on 2015 July 1Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox 2015 Ramadan attacks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If 2015 Ramadan attacks is going to be deleted, so should this template, which is based on a supposedly hypothetical topic. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I don't think we should keep 2015 Ramadan attacks, it would be appropriate if the attacks were tightly coordinated (similar to September 11 attacks). However, even then, this would not be an appropriate template. This is not a "campaign", and these are not battles. If there were such a template (which is not established) it would need to be named and implemented differently and go in the bottom of the article, like {{September 11 attacks}}. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for God's Sake There not battles, they're terrorist attacks. The attack are planned by different terrorist groups. How can it be connected when a ISIS leader calls for attacks days before, Somalia has a terrorist attack but with Al-Shabbab instead of ISIS. 174.113.217.132 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2015 (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.