Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18, 2006 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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sm edit

Delete — Was redirect for deleted template:Smiley. Now one of Piedras grandes' spamtemplates (along with Good and Bad) This one is Small, duplicate effort with, and much less useful than, the stub templates. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless and offensive template if I ever saw one.--cj | talk 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what do you expect from a person whose alias means Big Stones? (I guess cajones grandes was taken.) Jim62sch 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please don't try to compete with the established stub system. --James S. 07:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary. --Angr (tɔk) 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Deadsalmon 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to stub templates and per WP:ASR. Stifle 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per nom). "This Template is considered Small Please help to make it deleted!" -Xol 22:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace instances with {{stub}} and delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:30, Jan. 29, 2006

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User game edit

Keep. Popular template, not redundant. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your thought process behind this statement? User game-3 is an exact, word-for-word copy. Morgan695 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{user game}} displays the alternate text "This user plays [--]," which {{user game-3}} doesn't do. It has a number of other capabilities as well. Based on WP:AUM it might be good to keep both templates rather than having to do two jobs with one template, but I still see no reason to delete this template in favor of one that is both less popular and less capable. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is obviously redundant. Trödel•talk 02:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To user game-n to make this part of the line. Also check any userbox listing pages to make sure they are all grouped together.--God of War 02:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Christopher Parham and God of War. It is not redundant, it shows a completely different scheme. {{user game}} shows game's name at the left side of box while {{user game-1}} {{user game-2}} {{user game-3}} does not. It only shows a fan-1 fan-2 fan-3 respectively. We can keep it or rename it or move the capabilities to the game-n but remove it? Come on. PenSaku 05:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. Completely harmless. Redundancy isn't a good reason to delete templates until What Links Here is fixed. --James S. 07:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to game-n LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 09:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, I must admit I'm biased, being the author of said template, but it offers more complex color-name schemes than User game-n. It has a lot more features than say how much a person likes a game. And I could easily incorporate more levels of likeability. Seriously, it's only been around for about a week (and I'll still update it), and it's already got 17 users linking to it! I must say it in no way is reduntant, check out Template_talk:User game for examples of it's flexible useage. (By the way, I noticed that 6 is way too small text for the main box on some monitors [fav=yes], reverted to constant 8.) I'm not sure why it isn't working right now, becuase it works in the "show preview" mode, but not under a normal save. Perhaps the deletion tag was part of the problem - it was previously not under a noinclude tag. I'll fix it; I just don't have a lot of time to figure out the problem this second. -Xol 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per God of War - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 15:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Split: "Is the end product essential to Wikipedia, or is it a primarily decorative feature? Meta-templates that are not essential should be avoided." from Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates Prodego ^talk 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, give it a chance. I know that right now it looks messed up and useless, but that's only because it's got a tfd tag that won't let the template display properly. The visual errors should fix after the tfd is (hopefully) removed. To get all of the features of user game into separate templates (user game-n) would take useless amounts of copying. And how is it a meta-template? It doesn't reference any other template (I've subst:ed userbox). user game-n is just a waste of mustiple templates when one streamlined one can serve a wider range of purposes and help to allow full-customizeability for game boxes without the need for a lot of work for the user who wants the box. -Xol 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split. The switches and qifs tax the servers horribly and uselessly just so its end-users can type {{User game|KOTOR|fav=yes}} instead of {{User game/KOTOR/fav}}. —Cryptic (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The qif's etc. can be subst, but it's useless doing it now while the tfd is on it. That will fix the server load. -Xol
Delete. Not only is it pointless, it also just made me lose The Game. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not harming anyone, and it is definitely not it's fault that you lost. This was originally created because Morgan695 thought he had replaced it, which he did very inadequately. I'll subst the templates in it if it is un-tfd-ed because it's useless now when this tfd is ruining the display of it. It's point is to offer a simple way to easily create fan templates for different games without using hundreds of needless different game templates. -Xol
Keep. It's this or literally hundreds of other templates saying "this user plays game X." I'd rather just have to deal with the one. Rogue 9 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. - Hayter 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant! It's the original! -Xol 22:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless adjusted to say "this users plays the game of pretending wikipedia is myspace. --Gmaxwell 17:44, 29 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon color templates edit

(includes Template:BirdColor, Template:BugColor, Template:DarkColor, Template:DragonColor, Template:ElectricColor, Template:FightingColor, Template:FireColor, Template:FlyingColor, Template:GhostColor, Template:GrassColor, Template:GroundColor, Template:IceColor, Template:NormalColor, Template:OtherType, Template:PoisonColor, Template:PsychicColor, Template:RockColor, Template:SteelColor, Template:WaterColor)

Contain nothing but a "<font color=FOO>" half-tag, but are also used, AFAIK, in only one article (List of Pokémon by type). Gotta delete 'em all. -- Netoholic @ 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Delete them all - subst in only article used if necessary. Trödel•talk 02:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta Delete them all - Create a list matching Poison color to purple and so on so that they information is not lost.--God of War 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Delete. IMHO, any template whose only purpose is to code a color should be speediable. Keep looking Netoholic. You will find plenty more! ^Blank ^Verse 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Stifle 16:15, 25 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, I think. Auto-subst? What's that? -Splash^talk 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Okina edit

Template:Okina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subst and delete — This template is used to insert a single character, the ʻokina of Hawaiian (the first letter of the word ʻokina). Templates should never be used to insert characters, and now that the okina is available under the Hawaiian menu of the edit tools, there's even less reason to have it. It also violates the WP:AUM policy because it includes {{Unicode}}. --Angr (tɔk) 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Angr (tɔk) 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

abstain. But I went ahead and removed the TFD notice. It seriously messed up every article on Hawaii, and today it's even linked to from the Main Page and will get more than usual trafic. Can we settle this in a less article destructive way, without having to let the Hawaii articles be in a messed up state for a week? Shanes 07:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Auto-Subst: the new edit tools are only available to users of the monobook skin, or expert users of other skins who can install it in their personal javascript page. Much better to allow people to use it, and set a bot to auto-SUBSTituting it whenever it is added. BTW I've SUBSTituted {{unicode}} into it. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autosubst, although I don't agree with the fact that it's too complicated to active the new edit tools. —Nightstallion (?) 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the okina really that different from a common-or-garden apostrophe? Does replacing it with an apostrophe alter the pronunciation or meaning of Hawai'ian words? I personally hate it when people use ´ instead of ' as an apostrophe (or even worse, some non-ISO-8859 abomination Microsoft thinks is cute to put in Word documents), and the only thing keeping me from replacing okinas with apostrophes is my lack of knowledge of Hawai'ian language. JIP | Talk 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The ‘okina is different from the apostrophe but it isn't different from an opening single curly quotation mark, although the two do have different Unicode positions. The ‘okina is at U+02BB (and is supported by very few fonts), while the opening single curly quote is at U+2018 (and is supported by virtually every font). I would rather see this template replaced by ‘ than substed, which would insert <span class="Unicode">ʻ</span> everywhere. --Angr (tɔk) 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A further question: Would every Hawai'ian want to kill me if I replaced the okina with a normal, US-ASCII apostrophe? Is it merely a typographical convention or a functional distinction in the language, such as a/ä and o/ö in Finnish, which practically everyone gets wrong? JIP | Talk 18:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I imagine most Hawaiians would be pleased you were even attempting to put the ‘okina in the right place at all; the Hawaiian Bible I have has neither ‘okinas nor long marks on the vowels (which would be like printing the Bible in Finnish with only a and o in place of ä and ö). But IMO ‘ is almost as easy to insert as ', so we may as well get it right. Angr (tɔk) 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why should everything be forced into ASCII? Using ä instead of a" is merely a typographical convention too.--Prosfilaes 20:15, 29 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cryptic (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Constitution of Pakistan edit

Template:Constitution of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is designed for navigating a source document which Wikipedia will not host. Let's delete it. ʈ Talk 01:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and why exactly should we have {{US Constitution}} but not this one? Keep, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 13:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Sorry I mis-read this last night when I was looking at the Constition of Pakistan Article with the Main Body in bold I thought it was telling me I was in the main bady of the text and the nubers were different articles of the text, but I see now they are for different admenments. Sorry.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as has been withdrawn. --Loopy ^e 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Loopy --James S. 07:25, 19 January 2006 (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 page.