Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 1

< September 30	October 2 >

October 1 edit

Lbox 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. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these desirable? Do we want to be formatting non-portal wikilinks in a {{portal}}-style box? If the box is intended for use in a "see also" section, what's wrong with a plain link? My concern is that if we start formatting "see also" links in this way, we'll just end up with large areas of whitespace with lots of boxes floating to the right (see Bulletin board, for example). I also find the animated gif rather distracting. PC78 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Just added a few more templates to this nom. In addition to what I've said above, {{NBlist}} and {{WPlist}} are redundant to the default states of {{NBbox}} and {{WPbox}}. Even though some of these templates are restricted to certain namespaces, the use of WikiProject banners is already firmly established, so I'm not sure we need to be inventing new ways of linking them. The only one of these that has much merit IMHO is the notice board box, but again I think that's something we should perhaps think about incorporating into project banners. PC78 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lbox that seems useful, for use on portals. restrict the others to non-articlespace (non NS:0), I could see that a WikiProject might want to link to a list of WikiProjects on their main page, and a Portal might want to link to a list of portals on their talk page, and that an article might include a regional noticeboard link on their talk page or portal might include a regional noticeboard link on their main page, and that a regional noticeboard might want to link to a list of regional noticeboards. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Portal}} doesn't use {{Lbox}} though, and nor does it need to. PC78 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're mistaking my meaning. I'm not saying use {{Lbox}} on {{portal}}, I'm saying you can use {{Lbox}} on portalspace pages. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, but AFAIK portals are part of ther encyclopedia, so links to the Wikipedia namespace would count as a self-reference. PC78 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Portals have their own namespace, and have different existence, writing and content standards than articles, and frequently link to Wikiprojects on their main page (and their talk page as well). Outlines do exist in articlespace (NS:0) though... As portals look like magazine articles, boxed hypertext links could be useful on them to highlight a corresponding page. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WPbox not sure if this was a mistake but there is currently thousands and thousands of pages that use WPbox...I see no proposal for a replacement. Most country wikiprojects use it in a list fashion like Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals.Moxy (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WPbox is used on just 320 pages, most of them categories where the WikiProject can be linked on the talk page with a more traditional WikiProject banner. I'm not seeing any other WikiProject lists like the page you link. I don't know where you're getting your information from. PC78 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – They seem harmless enough, and are useful in some situations. I actually prefer the boxes on the right over normal links, as they stand out more and look better. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I find these templates useful and appropriate. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 16:15, 7 October 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:Willa's Wild Life 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. Airplaneman ✈ 02:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Willa's Wild Life (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template where most of the articles have not yet been created and probably will not be created. There is not sufficient source material or notability to create individual articles about the characters in Willa's Wild Life. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:21, 1 October 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:Split link 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. I did not find any instances to subst. Airplaneman ✈ 02:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Split link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only a handful of uses. Looking at the talk page examples I'm not seeing any real advantage in using this template as opposed to normal wikitext. PC78 (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete I'm not seeing much of an advantage. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 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.