Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8 edit

Template:Redirect template warning 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect template warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary warning boilerplate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is it unnecessary? It's used on practically all the redirect template talk pages as a reminder to update the pages it's on when its content is changed. I don't see that as unnecessary, I think it's responsible. If it's to be deleted then at least all the transclusions should be subst'd.. I still don't know if this is done automatically by a bot before a template is deleted as part of the TfD process or what, but it should be. -- œ ^™ 20:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for a start, it is almost indecipherable. Secondly, the admonition contained within is little more than a "when editing this please make sure you don't break the transclusions" comment, which is implicit to any template editing. Thirdly, in its present use it lives outside of regular template documentation. This is yet another throwback to when {{doc}} wasn't widespread and we had only a handful of editors watching templatespace. Nowadays the notion behind this template is generally dealt with socially rather than technically. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 22 June 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) 23:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is truly a "throwback" as Chris says, then yes, let's adios it. (And get the deletion notice off of the Rcats. When I zoomed here, I thought I'd see a discussion to delete the {{R from brand name}} template, which I wondered if it was needed, since we also have the {{R from trade name}} Rcat. So shouldn't there be a small-print notice for the Rcats instead of the full-fledged Delete notice that doesn't actually apply to the Rcat? similar to the small-print notices given in article namespace when a template is up for ~~deletion~~ discussion)

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 19:56, 14 July 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:Articles needing chemical formulas progress 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Articles needing chemical formulas progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Progress template is not very useful for an empty category. Svick (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first question I have is whether the Category:Articles needing chemical formulas is needed (it has a banner saying it may be empty from time to time). If the category is needed then that suggests the template will be useful during those times. Road Wizard (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while we keep {{Chemformula}}. Breaking the uniformity across the dated clean-up templates would be a Bad Thing™ anyway, but Progress box also has performed other tasks relating to empty and non-empty - non-created categories. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 20 June 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) 23:08, 8 July 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:APportalframeless 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 and replace with standard portal link. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

hackish inline portal (nothing more than a link and an image) formerly used on several theme park templates but now manually added to avoid breakage. Unlikely to be needed again, especially considering the simplicity of the underlying bit of code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 8 July 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:Expire 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, but no opinion if someone wants to merge this with {{expiry}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. According to the documentation, the template was meant to work with User:ExpireBot that wasn't approved more than 2 years ago. Svick (talk) 10:56, 8 July 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:Infobox colors 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox colors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer actively used. The talk page suggests that this was proposed as a unified colour scheme for infobox templates but it's not deployed as such and the colours appear to be arbitrary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:16, 8 July 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.