Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 1

April 1

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. There are issues with this template, as stated by the nominator and other "delete" voters, which seem to have not been appropriately fixed. I am willing to restore this to userspace upon request. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; poor quality map; many better alternatives exist, which is why this one isn't used. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. These templates have many town labels, which might seem "poor quality" but are intended as regional-area maps, in the style used by U.S. CIA international studies. The map templates had been hacked, but the coordinate calculations can be improved with more examples which show the excellent map resolution on PCs as well as newer mobile-phone devices. Both maps had been in use for 2 decades, not sure yet who is removing them from pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inferior to the SVG maps. These have not been used for years outside of Wikid77's user space (until Wikid77 added them to articles in the past week), where copies are already being stored. Also, adding it here is really a bad idea, since the pin isn't in the correct location. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed coordinates: The map templates had been hacked without testing, but the coordinate calculations have been fixed now, plus more examples show the excellent map resolution on PCs as well as newer mobile-phone devices. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2018 (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) 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of "related articles" in this navbox is not enough to justify the existence of the template. Only one directly related article to the topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2018 (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 (no longer unused) but feel free to renominate it if you would still like to see it deleted Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2018 (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).