Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 11

< October 10	October 12 >

October 11 edit

Template:Pokémon locations 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 debate was Delete --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokémon locations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pokémon regions have been merged into a single article based a consensus discussion. There is no need for this template, as the table of contents of the article itself is sufficient for navigation. Randomran (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No longer necessary. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No longer any use for it. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, all locations are in one article now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seeing as the articles included in the template have now all been merged into one article. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer useful for inter-article navigation. Pagra shtak 20:14, 13 October 2008 (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.

Carolingian templates 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 debate was Delete - have been replaced and are no longer in use Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carolingians, Aquitaine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (second nomination)

Template:Carolingians, Middle Francia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (third nomination)

Template:Carolingians, East Francia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (second nomination)

Template:Carolingians, West Francia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (third nomination)

All these templates are cluttersome sidebars that squeeze text, create white space, and prevent the efficient use of images. They are useless to boot because they are nothing but incomplete genealogies with no clear indicator to the reader of the (ir)relevance of the (limited) information they contain. Each of these templates could be replaced with a less obstructive footer template, as has already been made available for the West Frankish kings. Srnec (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all until we have something better to replace them with. This is a difficult area to write about, and people are unfamiliar with the names. They need some orientation, and this provides it. Prhaps it could be formatted a little less boldly. DGG (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Ugly and useless, as nominator says. For an example of how this could be better solved, see the recently remade Template:House of Plantagenet. Admittedly it makes you blind if you look at it for too long, but at least it's collapsable and takes less space. Lampman (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does everybody think of this suggestion for a footer template covering all the (male) Carolingians: User:Srnec/Template:Carolingians footer? Of course, it would be collapsable. Srnec (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, that would be a good solution. But what's with the ≡ thing in the legend, shouldn't it be = ? Lampman (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented my solution. None of the templates proposed for deletion are currently in use. What about Template:Carolingians? Useful or outdated now? (And you can change the equivalence sign to an equals sign. It was a carryover from my statistical thermodynamics...) Srnec (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2008 (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.