Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 18 August 20 >

August 19 edit

Template:Div 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) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is about five years old. After five years it has three transclusions: on its doc page, on its talk page and on the template page itself (via the doc). The proof is right before us. If the template were useful, why is it unused after five years? JIMp talk·cont 23:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I used it in the past. A meta template of a very basic arithmetic operation, even if currently unused, will almost certainly see use again in the future. I'd rather not lose it, to be honest, or even give up the name (template squatting?).
Amalthea 00:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As shown on the doc page, the metawiki div operator does not meet expectations as is demonstrated on this templates doc page. Even though it isn't currently use I think it is of value. –droll [chat] 02:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to add much value over alternatives. Not used. Lightmouse (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What alternatives. –droll [chat] 18:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a link to the article that you think needs it and I'm sure somebody will offer an alternative. Lightmouse (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really make sense. Are you sure you're in the right section? You provided the same rationale for the template below 16 seconds before this one, and there I agree that the alternative of using an entity is just as good. Amalthea 04:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it is useful, and I was just about to use it. Important of this wiki. ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rename to Template:Divide. The existing name isn't helpful (like calling Template:Clarify "Template:Cla"), and we need {{div}} as a wrapper for <div ...>...</div> anyway. "Strong keep" as "important" is a bit hyperbolic for something no one really uses, but it does serve a function and maybe more people will use it over time. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aargh. The right place for utility templates like this is up the stack in either a module or baked into MediaWiki itself. We do not need to keep them around here indefinitely just because they do clever stuff. As for potential future use, I'd be disinclined to consider a template likely to get adopted if it had no transclusions five weeks after creation: fifty times that long pushes that beyond doubt. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused, seems to be redundant to {{#expr:floor({{{1}}}/{{{2}}})}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commonly used in most programming languages and an intuitive name. violet/riga [talk] 19:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia isn't a programming language: it's an encyclopedia. And it's emphatically not an "intuitive name" when <div> is a far more commonly-used object on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ebe above says he/she was just about to use it ... but it still doesn't seem to be in use. No, it's not important, that it isn't used after all this time demonstrates this. {{#expr:floor({{{1}}}/{{{2}}})}}, as mentioned above, is a better alternative if ever this is needed. JIMp talk·cont 17:32, 23 August 2011 (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:Everett AquaSox roster navbox 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) 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Everett AquaSox roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly a red link farm. Two coaches have pages. One player has a page, but may not be notable. The other blue links are redirects. Typically, Class-A players are not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (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:Clinton LumberKings roster navbox 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) 18:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clinton LumberKings roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly a red link farm. One player has a page, but may not be notable. Another has a page and is definitely not notable (I've put it up for PROD), and the other blue links are redirects. Typically, Class-A players are not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2011 (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:Commons-user 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) 20:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons-user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{User|{{{1}}}|commons}}, rarely used, and leads to easy confusion with {{Commons user}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2011 (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:HelpCommons 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) 02:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think {{Commons}} works just fine in this case. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2011 (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:2006 Pacific hurricane season related articles 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) 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2006 Pacific hurricane season related articles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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/2011_August_19&oldid=1138694804"