Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 21

December 21

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 delete. JPG-GR (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In Plain Sight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically, this is a template for only two articles. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template that is unnecessary. It states "This template can be used for the subject of a lead in biographical articles." We do not need a template to properly embolden names and position nicknames. It is more complicated to use than placing style formatting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a template for formatting, not just outputting plain content, so I don't think the passage Black Falcon quotes is applicable. Nonetheless, I don't see this template as being useful. The users who don't know where to place a nickname, or who don't know that the first appearance of the subject's name should be bolded (the two things this template does), are not likely to know how to use a template correctly either. Better to stick with basic wiki-formatting as suggested in the nom. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is ultimately a template for displaying article text, even if its raison d'être is to order that text in a certain way. In any case, I agree that simply correcting the location of a misplaced nickname or adding a hidden comment to articles for which this is a recurring problem are better approaches. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this really just serves to complicate things, it's much easier to use the basic formatting. As RLO919 said, people who can't position nicknames correctly probably can't find or even use a template to do it for them, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:19, 29 December 2009 (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 as redundant to the other template. RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northwestern Wildcats Football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is already Template:NorthwesternWildcatsFootball, which includes more seasons than this template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (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 userfied to User:TheGreenMartian/AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs. JPG-GR (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't see how this would ever be used in a constructive way. Ks0stm (TCG) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (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.