Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 22

< October 21	October 23 >

October 22

Template:Getsemane Church Taytay

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 speedy delete as test page. Rcsprinter (converse) 10:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Getsemane Church Taytay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template serves no clear purpose and appears to be an attempt at writing an article in template space. Its only use is on Gethsemane Church Taytay, which I also proposed for deletion for lack of notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as test pageCurb Chain (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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:CATREF & others

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) 00:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Various versions of table of contents templates. If used without any params, they don't actually do much. Need to specify a specific param to make them do anything & that's not documented either. WOSlinker (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete all as test pagesCurb Chain (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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 mandir

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 Boldly redirected to Template:Infobox Mandir, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

1 article use. Easily replaceable by the much used Infobox Mandir Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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:Non-free standard test image

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 as unused, this is somewhat orthogonal to the discussion regarding the fair-use of a full resolution version of the Lenna.png image. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Non-free standard test image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, and redundant to a number of different non-free templates. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the replacement options? What is the meaning of "transclusions" in this context and why is it important? PAR (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Transclusions" is the term we use when a template is actually used somewhere in double braces, like this: {{fact}}. Thus this template is not being used anywhere. As for replacement options, there really is no need for any replacement options, since the template is not being used to begin with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment were this to be used, it should be included on File:Lenna.png. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no need for a separate FUR template for a single image. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It could be substed there as a more detailed explaination of it. 65.94.77.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC).
  • That was the only instance where it was previously used, and was fully redundant to the standard template (and so removed). As Chris Cunningham said, there is no need for a separate template. Really, all of this is stuff that should go into the required fair use rationale. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Now you've also taken out the rationale where it was used in Lenna.png (whether it was subst'd from this template, I don't know). Have you at least reviewed the long discussions of prior years on that image's fair use rationales? Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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:Cquotetxt

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 merge, if there is desire add a color parameter, or to change the default color to silver, then a thread can be started on the template talk page. So, there really isn't anything to merge I suppose, but just replace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I propose to merge this with {{cquote}} by adding a color parameter for the quotes themselves. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Further complicating cquote is neither necessary nor desirable. This was uncontroversially redirected last year only for FleetCommand (talk · contribs) to restore it two months later with a complete non-argument. The redirect should simply be restored, as the "feature" of being able to change the quotation mark colours does nothing but complicate articles and template code and make our content less consistent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Meh, cquote already has a bgcolor parameter which is used for eye candy I personally disapprove of, e.g. adding a green background for quotes from Islamic texts. (By the way, there is a discussion at WT:MOS about this background color issue.) I see no big deal to adding a color parameter for the quotes themselves. There are valid uses for that outside article space. Also, I personally find the grey quote marks slightly less flashy than the blue ones. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd be inclined to ask for evidence of utility outside of articlespace before accepting it (and would be strongly disinclined to accept it if said use was in userspace or community pages). Our use of quotes is already a tremendous mess due to lack of consistency, and if dropping an option here helps bring some fraction of the ~400 transclusions of this template (the majority of which don't appear to use the option in question anyway) further in line with what little consistency we have then that's a win for me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral I do not care what happens to this template anymore. Back then, I had a very a good reason for reverting it: The templates were not exactly similar but both were widely used. And this slight dissimilarity had brought about the ruin of all texts written in {{cquotetxt}}. But things has changed: MediaWiki software is updated, templates are changed, even Chris Cunningham has improved much in terms of civility. Do whatever you like. Fleet Command (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to {{cquote}}. I personally like the gray quote marks better, but don't really care enough about it to suggest changing the color on cquote. One template is plenty for decorative quote marks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect without merging per WP:DEW. Pick a color and keep it. --NYKevin @957, i.e. 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • By that logic the bgcolor parameter of cquote should not exist either. Just pick one color and stick with it? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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.