Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29 edit

Template:OTHERSITE 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) 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 29 June 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:Lau 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) 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:36, 29 June 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:Top2 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) 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly unused and redundant to {{div col}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 29 June 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:Cite web= 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 User:Malik Shabazz (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Template:Cite web= (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)[reply]

Only includes a link, judging by title it was meant to be used as a reference. Same function could be provided by actually using the Cite web template. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need to have one URL in a template. Svick (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete virtually useless hardlinked EL to an exceedingly generic titled template. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—generic title that could be confused with the real template, but a very specific link hard-coded. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seen this before: someone uses the wrong syntax, gets a redlink, click on it and adds the info. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:29, 1 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:VA facility/route 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) 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VA facility/route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:VA facility (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates, functionality replaced by {{Infobox road}} —Fredddie™ 21:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—ditch them both as replaced. Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – TMF 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 17:11, 5 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:Post-Cold War Fighter Aircraft 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) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-Cold War Fighter Aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox created in good faith but gained no consensus for use at WP:AIRCRAFT (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_26#Template:Post-Cold_War_Fighter_Aircraft). MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I stated in my comments at WP:AIRCRAFT, the project already uses decadal categories to organize aircraft. Furthermore, the template organizes aircraft by "generation" which is a nebulous term that results in a lot of arguing and edit warring. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom and Side's comments. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 29 June 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:18sx 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) 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:18sx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete Completely pointless: a template telling people to exit from the page? The template was placed by its creator in the article Penis, which was absurd: the article does not contain "sexual abuse, pornography, violence". As far as I can determine it has never been used anywhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article doesn't contain "sexual abuse, pornography, violence", so remove this from the article! But keep the template because it can use in other article.
The template doesn't telling people to exit, but asking the agreement that the article may not suitable for minors, if they disagree, they can go to the main article, but if they do, so they can continue to see the article.
Aris riyanto (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit the template, so it can be more useful. Aris riyanto (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but it should not be necessary since articles are covered by the general disclaimer at the bottom of every page. This type of proposal has been rejected by WP:CONSENSUS.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:36, 29 June 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 Nepalese political party 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Nepalese political party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded instance of Template:Infobox political party. A separate template is not necessary. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there are some particularities, especially the election symbols. --Soman (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Useful distinctions can be merged. It is unlikely that this template differs so significantly from the generic one that a merge would be a bad idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The template specifies names of wings that {{Infobox political party}} doesn't and it would be tedious to fill them in on every page. Although it seems only 3 articles (Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), Nepal Workers Peasants Party and Rastriya Janashakti Party) actually use them, so the keep is weak. I don't think election symbols are reason to keep it, this template uses them directly from {{Infobox political party}}, just with different name. Svick (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Ah, I didn't see that this actually subclasses the general template. In that case this is a perfectly acceptable template; it isn't "hard-coded", it's subclassed, and there's a difference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Svick. This is useful as a frontend to the standard template since it helps with consistent naming of particular wings. Plastikspork (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but I'd prefer consolidation into the main "master" template instead. Imzadi 1979 → 19:06, 29 June 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:•• 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) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is used solely as a hack to add bullet points in a series of video game chronology articles. As all of the uses could (and should) make use of either proper lists or simple line breaks, there is no need to fake a list structure using this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This usage is just bizarre. What ever happened to listing things with commas? We don't need to invent new grammatical structures for making lists. There are plenty already out there - vertical bullet lists, line breaks, commas, semicolons, etc. If you really want to use bullets, we already have {{*}} for intervening bullets, which is the only bullet format that makes sense for horizontal lists. The only reason you would use preceeding bullets is if you need to line everything up vertically, in which case you should use a regular bullet list. Kaldari (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the nominator is right that proper wikicoding should be used instead of this template. Imzadi 1979 → 18:42, 29 June 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:Kenan & Kel 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) 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kenan & Kel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four links, all of which are already included or easily discoverable from any of the four pages in question without a navigation template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 29 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_29&oldid=1138694357"