Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 28

April 28

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no conceivable legitimate use for this template; even in articles about html attributes we use screenshotted images of formatting rather than actually formatting in the readers' browsers, since the output from varies by browser (and in the case of this particular output, doesn't function at all in many common browsers).  ‑ Iridescent 18:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this to make it easier to tilt content. And no, I was not the first user to use the tilt CSS rule. User:EEng has a tilted TOC on his user page, but not his talk page. Either keep the template, or delete it and disallow the CSS rules. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 15:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me. I got the idea from Martinevans123's userpage here: [1]. He's a very bad influence on other editors.[FBDB] EEng 16:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ok, I admit I stole it from clogipedia for use on windmill articles. I'd say Keep, as per User:UpsandDowns1234, even though WP:ACCESS issues may be only partly mitigated by zoom. We certainly don't want any "mucking around". Not on your Nellie. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete and move {{Universities in Malaysia}} to this title. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this template was unnecessarily created by a move from "universities in Malaysia" I moved it back to its original name. Then this User blanked it. The template is now redundant LibStar (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (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).

Progress Wrestling

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These championships have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress World Cup for not being notable. The subjects aren't notable enough to be useful templates. LM2000 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2017 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was keep, template is being used Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely a formatting template, not content. Is an unused subtemplate. Is orphaned. Family First Party is defunct so this formatting template is completely superfluous. Also very easy to recreate. Donama (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2017 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Manifestly outdated. Can't see what value is served. Contains no actual content not already covered on Wikipedia. Donama (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (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).