Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

February 20 edit

Template:HK-MTR lines 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 Update, subst and eventually delete. The upshot of the discussion seems to be twofold: 1) remove any uses of this template in regular article text and replace them with plain wikilinks; and 2) update the template to use {{colorbox}} and then substitute any uses outside of regular article text (tables, other templates, etc.). Once all instances are substituted, the template can be deleted. I won't be implementing these changes myself, so I'm placing this one into Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_review so that interested parties can work on the updates and substitutions. If this work is completed by a non-admin, notify me when it is done and I will perform the deletion. RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HK-MTR lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Remove colours, and subst/delete. Unnecessarily adds bold to and changes the colour of this text wherever they appear. Particularly problematic are that four of the lines produce colours similar to the Monobook default link colours for external, dangling and stub links. With the formatting removed, the remainder is an overcomplicated convenience template. Use of this in templates can be replaced by the "block" or "bullet" style used in other such templates (see Template:Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations, Template:Scottish railway lines, Bakerloo line and Template:Tokyo transit for examples). As always, that other projects may do it or might have done in the past is not an endorsement. Participants are reminded that TfD is not a binary vote, and are invited to consider options such as only removing the colours. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to make sure that when a colour fount is needed, the same colour is used for the same line across different pages. IMHO What should be done is to reduce the occurance colour fount, rather than killing the template. And I agree not to bold. 210.177.66.30 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell some color (e.g. dark blue) when the text isn't bold. Bold text can also differetiate the colored route name text from conventional linked text. About using the colored symbolic characters like █ ■ ● ◆ instead of color template raises the problem of screen readers which may read the symbols aloud depending on how individual program interprets each symbol. Because these symbols are purely decorative but contain no useful information to visually impaired readers (the major users of screen reader). More importantly it seems that there's no way to make them completely ignor-able to the screen reader. Microsoft Sam will read the █ and ■ as vertical line (very confusing) and ignore the ● ◆ (but they're less prefered shapes in the railway articles/project). The online one, WebAnywhere ignores all symbols but pause at them which might confuse the listener a bit, and it doesn't seem to be more popular than the Microsoft text-to-speech voices yet. The color template used by {{Infobox TfL line}} (Bakerloo line) is actually coloring the background of an empty table grid rather than using the symbolic character. The problem is wikitable can never be blended within the text like an image does, it always does a hard return no matter how you code it. After all, using the colored text creates the least problem to visually impaired readers because, unlike the symbolic characters, it doesn't deliver the uncontrollable messages through the screen reader. I would say it is preferably keep. All we need is a consensual policy regarding the colored text template for railway projects to avoid overuse. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone with a screen reader need to know the colour of the text? Using arbitrary colours in article text is a big no-no, and has been for years. "Formatting such as font size, blank space, and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be set in articles except in special cases." I don't see how the name of a line is a "special case". For templates or infoboxes, there are far more effective ways of dealine with it, and in article prose it's entirely unnecessary. For the avoidance of doubt, we already have a consensual policy on the use of coloured text in this way - we don't do it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I mean using the colored text can avoid the color message to be delivered to the visually impaired readers through the screen reader. Speaking of WP:MOSCOLOR policy, using the additional colored symbolic characters like █ as in {{Scottish railway lines}} and {{Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations}} is not recommended, because the symbol confuses the screen reader which reads "vertical line" aloud. Actually you should request removal of the symbol █ for the sake of screen reader users.
As for this template, we have some good reason to preserve it. 1) The line livery colors are so emphatic in the MTR system officially. 2) MTR doesn't use number to identify each route, most of their names, such as Kwun Tong Line and Tsuen Wan Line, are too alien, unmemorable to foreign (especially English speaking) readers. Using colored text is a bonus for them to distinguish each line. 3) This template also links the colored route name text to their own article, so confusion with other ordinary linked text isn't the reason. 4) This template is applied according to the policy for not wp:overlinking the same term in each article, which also means preventing the colored text to reappear too much.
Colored text does no harm to blind and colorblind readers, it is just a bonus for the visually normal reader. In contrary, it is the colored symbolic character █ creates more problem for the screen reader users. Subst is not an option. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify precisely where in WP:MOSCOLOR it recommends against using those symbols? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a Wikipedia policy yet. But that doesn't mean the problem generated by the symbolic characters should be ignored. Let me stress it one more time, The symbol █ is no good to screen reader users. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some color of the text does not have enough contrast to the background for colorblind readers. If that's the case, we simply increase the contrast ratio which passes the Luminosity Colour Contrast Ratio Analyser test (which is higher than 4.5:1.) And I want to add that, we should not eliminate something that isn't helpful to some group of people but IS useful to the majority. Rather we should look for some alternative solution to satisfy the minority. (Just because blind reader cannot look at the image, does that mean we should remove all of the images from Wikipedia?) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The colours are still arbitrary distractions in the text that override whichever skin the reader is using (whether one of the standard skins, or at an external mirror) for no reason whatsoever that isn't related to style. Why do the words "West Rail Line" need to be purple everywhere? You can easily colour them on the navbox if you like (using the MTR color templates to ensure consistency), but there's no need for a template like this. What benefit does this deliver in article text over something like MTR West Rail Line? If I'm reading an article on types or characteristics of public transport, why do I need a technicolor distraction? Would you advocate the use of red every time it's mentioned? No. This is no different. Worth noting the New York Subway people got rid of the colours from articles years ago - Template:New York City Subway uses {{color box}}. Template:MBTA uses the same to create virtual "bullets". Use that to colour the template if you're desperate, just don't go making silly excuses for not fixing the currently broken in-article colouring. WP:COLORS: "Overriding a link color, especially to red, is confusing and should be avoided." 81.111.114.131 (talk) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template is of restrained use in the prose. It's hardly a "distraction" unless it's overused in the prose. And lot of MTR-related infoboxes and templates are still transcluding this one to ease the procedure to apply the color from {{HK-MTR color}} and bypass the disambiguation page such as Airport Express, Island Line and East-west Line. It shoud not be deleted. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked three of the four that discussed this issue on Wikipedia talk:Using colours to comment here (the other participant has since been indef'd). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, 81.111.114.131. Concerning Template:HK-MTR lines, I have nothing to add to the review I made in August 2009. Getting rid of this template would improve usability (Wikipedia's links are blue, this rule should not change) and accessibility as well (contrast is too low). Plus, as Sameboat stated, this emphasis on these links every time they appear in the text is not useful at all.
However, the alternatives mentioned by 81.111.114.131 such as Template:Cardiff are no better. As Sameboat explained, using symbol characters and coloring them with HTML would make it worse accessibility-wise. The best solution is to use an icon ~~with relevant alt text~~ With no alt text and no link. For example: [[File:Locator Dot.svg|15px|link=|alt=]] . Use of {{colorbox}} is also OK, but not as optimal as the icon according to an accessibility expert. If you have any further questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree to replace the color indicator by {{colorbox}} (Lorem East Rail Line Ipsum). I suppose this is the most agreeable solution right now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also sandbox is ready {{HK-MTR lines/sandbox}}. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but you've put it in the wrong place. This does not belong in article prose. The appropriate place to use {{color box}} is in the navboxes. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the creation of {{HK-MTR lines}} was based on {{S-line}} requirement. And no policy rules out the usage of colorbox in the prose, unless it is being overused. The discussion regarding the usage of templates doesn't belong here. Time to close the case. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No law rules out chopping your own arm off with an axe, but I wouldn't say that was a good idea. {{S-line}} does not require coloured text. I also can't see how the guidelines could be any clearer than "Overriding a link colour [...] is confusing and should be avoided" - you've yet to tell us why this particular use of colour is practically unavoidable. The coloured box can go in the navboxes directly. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template is heavily used in MTR-related templates, navboxes, and tables over in prose. Since I've prepared a sandbox for subst to satisfy your request for not coloring the text, there's really no reason to continue this disucssion any longer. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm thinking the following might be a sensible course of action:

# Add the coloured box to the template in place of bold and colour (check template spelling, I found a couple of these with similar names but different effects)

# Subst the template into relevant navboxes

# Remove the coloured box from the template

# Optionally subst the now-colourless templates into article prose.

There might be some special cases in articles, such as the table at MTR#Network, where it might be appropriate to use the coloured box, or to have an additional coloured column (see election result tables for example). Alternatively, have the coloured box as a parameter, {{HK-MTR lines|East Rail|box=yes}}, such that it doesn't appear until it's specifically asked for. As long as the end result is no random bits of colour in article prose, I don't mind what happens after that. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for a very irresponsible act. Where do you see the {{HK-MTR lines‎}} is being used in the MTR prose? If you detest the use of colorbox within the prose, substitute them manually (including bypass the disambiguation page) from the article prose yourself, don't storm and complicate this template further. Adding the box parameter means nearly hundreds of revision to reactivate it in the navboxes, infoboxes and tables, I can't agree on such craziness. Your IP shows you're from UK, I see no reason you will redeem hundreds of MTR-related articles from the aftermath. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the colored text, there's nothing wrong to have colorbox appearing in the prose at all. You better give me some really good objective reason rather than your personal preference why it shouldn't be. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can say there's nothing wrong, but that doesn't magically make it so. Granted, there's nothing in our policy that specifically says you can't go adding random coloured boxes to article prose. There's also nothing in our policy that specifically says you can't go and replace every other word in an article with "walrus". I have provided more than enough argument against using it in article prose, yet you have not provided even a shred of reasoned argument to support it. Templates I can understand, and have made no issue about, yet you haven't provided even the tiniest point in support of turning the lead of MTR K-Stock EMU into fruit salad with annoying coloured boxes everywhere. I have put my point forward, and have made more than ample support for it. The onus is now on you to do the same. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just beat around the bush with vague "arguments". I said it once more, only remove the template from the article prose one by one if you like, but don't remove the color indicator from this template to your personal preference. At the very least {{HK-MTR lines}} is still being transcluded in tons of tables and infoboxes, this perfectly makes sense to apply the colorbox. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing vague about "our guidelines specifically state that this is a bad idea". The current state whereby the colours are used in article prose is absolutely not acceptable. I have made suggestions as to how to deal with it. If you're not prepared to follow up on them, or engage in some constructive action over them, there's really little else that can be done. Either way, the current state of affairs is that there is no consensus to use the colours in all uses, when there are consensus-backed guidelines that suggest that the colours should not be used in most places. Merely stating that there's "no rule against it", or accusing me of being "vague" isn't going to change this. Neither will using inapropriate edit summaries that suggest that your position has consensus support. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint. 81.111.114.131 is starting to edit the template to his/her own perference before the case is officially closed by mediator! And he/she has removed my statement from the discussion! This is ruthless, unacceptable! -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editing "to my own preference". I am editing to reflect the consensus that has emerged here - namely that coloured text is a bad idea. You are the only person here that hasn't explicitly said it should be removed. 210.177.66.30 said the colour and bolding should go. Dodoïste has said the colour and bolding should go. WP:MOSCOLOR says the colours should go. A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Using colours has said the colours should go. It would appear that the bold-coloured link is one thing that is not in dispute at the moment. If you want to explore other options as to the display of the colours in the templates, you are welcome to do so, but disrupting articles wholesale with interspersed colours or boxes or icons is not the way to go. A clear consensus against the status quo ante has emerged. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that we are not alone. They've also found MOS:TEXT#Color, which is about as unambiguous a statement as you will find on the matter. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least User:Dodoïste agree on the substitution by icon image which is similar to colorbox. Thus your removal of my substitution by colorbox isn't consensual as well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was causing it to show up in prose, which, depending on where you look, either "should be avoided" or "should almost never be done". See also MOS:ICONS, where it says, in bold, "Do not use icons in general article prose". Right now, you are the only person who seems to have a problem with this. I'd say that's consensus. If you want to find a way to show the coloured box on demand, go ahead. However, until that happens, it would seem the consensus result is "Keep, but remove colours". Again, you could try arguing that the coloured box is not coloured text and it is not an image, so it isn't covered by either, but you'd be utterly missing the point. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline only grant you power to remove the icons from the article prose MANUALLY. But not remove them from the template which is heavily used for OTHER PURPOSE. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the bit about missing the point? If you want the boxes in the navboxes, feel free to add them yourself. That's what they did at Template:New York City Subway. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article prose gets rid of this template, feel free to remove them yourself, but MANUALLY from the article, not this template. Tables and infoboxes have a more dominantly usage over the prose. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to support this position? It's just that right now this discussion has resulted in consensus to remove the colours from the template. As for fixing it, removing the colours from article prose requires one edit to the template. The onus is on you to find a way to achieve your preferred position now. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that previously some other editor prefers to apply this template in the prose. But that doesn't mean the color indicator should be removed due to those misuses. This template is still predominantly used in tables and infoboxes, not the prose. Restore the color indicator from the infoboxes and tables consumes more resource and time than remove this template from the prose. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is used in 20 templates (and a couple of those look like they shouldn't). It is transcluded into 300 articles. A brief sampling of these show that all of these include the templatein prose. It is therefore less work to remove from this template and to place the box manually or via a parameter in the navigation templates. What do you know? Template:Pearl River Delta transit already has them (and has done since it was created). If you add the coloured box to the template, that will be doubled. (See? Two can play at that game.) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The platform layout tables for each station article were written manually. So removing the color indicator is not only affecting those 20 templates, but including those 300 articles as well, do your math. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm afraid you'll have to go fix that yourself. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one bringing out the topic, so you're obligated to do the rest of restoration. You shoud not do anything that alternate the performance of the template before this case is officially closed. And you're in no position to warm me. You too participate in the edit war. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the "platform number" for each station platform layout are colored as well (e.g. Kowloon Tong Station#Station layout). If you truly care for the colorblind users, you may be interested to remove those color font syntax from the article as well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected this template pending the closure of the TfD. It's not practical for people to discuss a template at TfD when it's constantly changing. You can reach consensus without constantly changing. Ged UK 09:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst by colobox ({{HK-MTR lines/sandbox}}). It is wiser to remove this template from the article prose manually one by one along with the colored numbers from their station/platform layout section of MTR-station articles per wp:using colour (not to mention some overlink caused by overuse of this template). Because a large-scale manual revision is unavoidable anyway, there is no need to prohibit the colorbox to be applied in this template in favor of an immediate color indicator removal from the article prose. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a plain link in the article prose. Any uses in tables, diagrams, or infoboxes can be replaced by a colorbox per Sameboat's suggestion. However, the sandbox code that Sameboat provided should be simplified if it is going to be use for substitution. Once all the transclusions are handled, this template can be deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:17, 28 February 2010 (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.

Template:Desert topic 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 Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Desert topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This covers far too wide a range, for instance, what makes Oceanic trench a desert topic? This is just a loose collection of vaguely related navboxes. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 12#Template:The extraterrestrial Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the other template mentioned in the nomination, this is a collection of other templates that are only marginally related to deserts. --RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (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.

Template:Reflist-2 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reflist-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{reflist}} used in a handful of articles. Replace with {{reflist|2}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this should be removed as it is a duplicate function of {{reflist}} which is more robust. I think this is a case for WP:BB, going to take a little time and modify the articles calling for this template. Update: removed all transclusions of this template. --Magicus69 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Please also note that multicolumn reference lists are considered bad practise by the developers (see this bug). --The Evil IP address (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2010 (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.

Template:Hisayasu Satō 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 keep now that it has been expanded Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hisayasu Satō (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films (note: this was tagged 24 hours ago, but is being nominated now due to an error. Please excuse me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template now has five films. Director is a very prolific, very controversial figure whose films have generated a lot of writing. Template can be expanded easily, and is already valid. Dekkappai (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More links have been added since the nomination, so I believe it now has enough links to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2010 (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.

Template:Shinji Imaoka 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 keep now that it has been expanded Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shinji Imaoka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films (note: this was tagged 24 hours ago, but is being nominated now due to an error. Please excuse me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another major currently-active pink film director. Has had five films awarded at the Pink Grand Prix (the "Academy Awards of Pink"). I hope to have articles on two more of his films started and put on the template about 12 hours from now. Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Four films now. Real life interfered, but I should have a fifth film up tomorrow morning. Dekkappai (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK-- five films now. Dekkappai (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now has enough links to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2010 (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.

Template:Dylan under construction 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 Keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dylan under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Unused abandoned template that is of little use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template was useful during recent work on Like a Rolling Stone and will be useful on next Dylan project. Mick gold (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mick gold. Also useful for letting people the WP Project Dylan exists and it will be in use again and again, if not at this precise moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mick gold and Richhoncho. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other "keep" voters. Airplaneman ^talk 05:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The members of WP Project Dylan would like to use it again very soon for their next project. Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2010 (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.

Template:NA 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 Magioladitis (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Abandoned, difficult to use and redundant to Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_7#Template:NA. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abandoned, unused, useless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a substitution template, so usage through links would not be shown. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment add linkages from Advanced New Article Wizard as an optional preload template, since it does do a few more things that the current preload. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In its current form the template is difficult to use. A page that shows the following wiki markup is more convenient:

<!-- 

This hidden comment should be removed.

1. Cut and paste into the page to be created
2. Double click on a character string to add your own text in its place.
3. Delete all unused text.
4. Please use the preview button before saving. 

-->
[[File:FileNameHere.FileExtension|right|thumb|ImageCaptionHere]]
'''ArticleTitleHere''' OpeningSentenceHere.

==HeadingHere==
ContentHere.

==AnotherHeadingHere==
MoreContentHere.

==See also==
*[[WikilinkHere]]
*[[WikilinkHere]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[URLHere] - DescribeLinkTargetHere


{{FooterTemplateNameHere}}

[[Category:CategoryNameHere]]


{{StubNameHere}}

[[InterlanguageWikilinksHere]]

This would give the layout as per WP:MOS. I have thought of having such a template myself but there is enough editing assistance to make it redundant. Also, because page layout is quite variable it is best started from scratch-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alan, unless the current revamp renders it easier to use/more useful (and therefore more used). And per this. Airplaneman ^talk 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous Tfd in November 2009 resulted with keep, Article Wizard 2.0 was created in August 2009. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2010 (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.

Template:ImageDeletionWarning 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, redundant to {{Di-no source-notice}}, which is used when a file is tagged for CSD with {{Di-no source}} and {{Fdw}}, used when a file is nominated for deletion. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant; its role could be filled with other just as capable templates. Airplaneman ^talk 05:39, 28 February 2010 (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.

Template:Polygon area 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.

Template:Polygon area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Redundant now that all the area formulae of the polygons are in their articles. 4 T C 11:16, 20 February 2010 (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.