Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11 edit

Template:Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. 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) 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are only three entries in the template (Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation is a redirect; Gernatt Family Endowment for St. Joseph School is completely non-notable -- the school itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia article); seems too much of a reach and/or too promotional. Two of the entries in the template have been AfDed and deleted. If this template is not to be deleted, at the very least it should be cleared of the family listings except for Flavia. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I created this template, Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. and Dianna Gernatt Saraf were presented with their own articles, which, by consensus, and in my disagreement, have been deleted. In my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, both of those people are notable, which is why I created those articles, as well as this template. Contrary to a number of people on Wikipedia believing that articles and/or the template about the family being promotional, they are definitely not. I am not related to the family, I am not employed by the family, nor am I a friend of the family. I merely have an interest in the family and added information about them on Wikipedia to better inform the public about notable, accurate, and thorough facts related to them. I will go in and delete the two now "non-notable" people if that helps critics feel better. Ever since I began creating articles and now, with this template, about this family and their activities, there has been heavy and unnecessary criticism by a select few folks who just don't appear to like or be supportive of my efforts. This is the biggest reason that I am no longer very active on Wikipedia. I joined to add to the community, not to waste my time by having my work deleted. The style of harsh editing that has often occurred here is not akin to my taste. You all can do whatever the heck you want; I know it will happen anyway. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. There are only three entries in the template (Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation is a redirect; Gernatt Family Endowment for St. Joseph School is completely non-notable -- the school itself doesn't even have a Wikipedia article!) Three wiki entries is not enough to warrant a template. Subject not notable enough for the template to grow any further. Softlavender (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. The empire of companies held by this family is the largest in New York State for approved aggregate suppliers. Has it ever occurred to anyone that they are notable, but may be purposely trying to downplay their notability? My efforts are to inform and in no way to promote. If I was a promoter, I would only state all good things about them, and I have provided a balanced and thorough perspective, much of which continues being deleted by other editors. That is definitely a shame. Without thorough and accurate information about notable people and organizations, Wikipedia's endeavors are incomplete and blindly selective. Why do so many editors want to delete and hide information about individuals and/or entities that are clearly notable? What I've found is that is a matter of perspective and politics, and that is another downfall of organizations that cannot cut through that. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be duly noted is that Softlavender has repeatedly edited my comment/vote above. Note that she, as nominator, has double-voted and is more concerned about controlling my right to vote than being accountable regarding her own double vote. Softlavender is one of a number of editors who has followed my edits, particularly regarding this family, and has not at all been supportive of any of the information I have added to Wikipedia about this family. She is obviously biased against my work and this family. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edited your comment other than to remove the word Keep. I have not double voted, I have nominated and then voted with additional evidence, clearly indicating I am the nominator. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also to be noted is that this is a re-list, so I can take the opportunity to vote again. Why does this have to be made so unnecessarily difficult? Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sections to the template, expanding it and adding further notability. Reasons to maintain the template are clear and have been further established. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you added the horses (which are actual articles), but it's not good that you are trying otherwise to stack the template with non-articles and non-related items. I've removed the unrelated items, the AfDed family members and the other non-notable family members. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you were being thorough and accurate, then the template should be expanded as I had done. Again, it is a matter of perspective. I don't see it as "stacking," but expanding. I see your actions as deleting information that is relevant to the expansion and maintenance of the template, including family members who may not be considered "notable" only by consensus, but who actually achieved notability by Wiki's standards and which articles were deleted anyway. Also, how are this man's sponsorships unrelated to him? Why remove a section that is relevant? People who are truly making a genuine effort to collaborate on Wikipedia take action to support and maintain others' work, not erase it. Also, what's the deal with continuing to delete my vote? Edit your own comments, not mine! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now — Though it's questionable, I don't really see enough reason to delete it while it is being developed further. Notability plays an indirect role in template deletions, as direct judgement is based on usefulness to the project. Navboxes should basically only list pages on which they appear, being primarily for navigation. An exception would be a "related" section, which also doesn't add as much to the template's value, since the linked pages don't transclude it. This template passes the threshold where I say give it a chance, with support for renomination if there are still issues in a few months. —PC-XT+ 08:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Or, it could be deleted with support for recreation if the articles get sorted out. —PC-XT+ 18:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire "Gernatt Family of Companies" tribe of articles is one of the most absurd examples of low-quality content bloat I've ever seen. Not only are the most routine facts guarded by regiments of mighty citations --
The companies were cofounded in 1946 by late Chairman of the Board Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.,[9][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]
-- but the avalanche of mindnumbing trivia borders on self-parody:
Trucks used by the companies for hauling include a stone slinger, tri-axles, single-axles, tractor-trailers, and live bottom trailers...The Gernatt Family of Companies can also be found on the worldwide, professional social network, LinkedIn, under Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. ... In 1995, the companies were one of several to apply with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for expansions ... An industrial accident occurred at one of the companies in August 2013. There was an explosion on a conveyor belt at the asphalt plant in Yorkshire, New York. Thomas Treadway, a company employee, experienced third degree burns and was transported to the Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo, New York, by helicopter.
Wow. Tri-axles and single-axles. Wow. By helicopter. Wow. Sand is linked, in case the reader doesn't know what sand is, but unfortunately stone slinger isn't, because I'd really like to know what a stone slinger is. (Sounds dangerous, come to think of it.) But wait, there's more! Don't you want to know about the signage in their gravel yards?
Gernatt, who owns his own trucking company, also stated that the Companies are using current technology to improve communications, as well as maps in their yards for enhanced directional awareness, for drivers and customers entering their businesses to get loadouts.

In a 2009 issue of Aggregates Manager by Mary Foster, Donald Gernatt is quoted in regard to improving safety for drivers who come to the Companies, stating:

"We began to post maps in our yards about 10 years ago to make sure drivers not only know where the materials are located, but that they also understand the traffic patterns. Yes, we want to be efficient, but even more important, we want our yards to be safe for our employees and our customers."
I'm not making this up -- the article actually has a pullquote (complete with faint powder-blue background) from the journal Aggregates Manager, about the company CEO's personal philosophy on signage and, more importantly, his thoughts on social responsibility. And... And... And don't forget the article is by noted directional awareness reporter Mary Foster. That's important.
The inclusion of the company logo, complete with cheesy slogan ("One call does it all") and even the company's phone number, for crying out loud, adds an odor of promotionalism to this slagheap of worthless miscellany. Merge into one or two articles (plus maybe two for the horses) without the stupid template enumerating everything ever related to Mr. Garnatt, such as the "Bishop's Medal of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Buffalo" and the "DeWitt Clinton Masonic Award" -- which, apparently, aren't themselves even sufficiently important to rate their own articles.
EEng (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, if the articles can't be made into encyclopedia articles, then there is obviously no need for navigation between them. Honestly, the template could always be recreated if the articles do become established. —PC-XT+ 18:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that EEng is another editor who has had absolutely nothing good to say about me or my work here, and is obviously very negatively biased in those regards. It is a shame that so many people are such haters here. I had really expected better of this organization. People such as myself who have alot of good things to contribute are driven away by this kind of ugliness and unprofessionalism. Really, it is shameful. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record AFAIK my only interaction with Daniellagreen was here [1], where (surprise!) she ended the conversation with the declaration that I and another editor were hopelessly biased against her, how shameful everything is, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. That was just one year ago, at the beginning of DG's WP career, and nothing's changed since. We're all still negatively biased unprofessional haters. All of us. Except she. Really, it is shameful. EEng (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real issue is whether or not the people and entities related to this family are "notable enough" for other editors on Wikipedia. While I observed that notability guidelines were achieved regarding the two articles that I had created about members of this family, the consensus (and only barely reached on the Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. article, by the way) was to delete them because other editors did not believe they were "notable enough" even though, in fact, they are notable. Here again, the same issue has come up in regard to this template. Notability has been achieved such that the template should be maintained. Also, as User:PC-XT stated, the template is in development. I appreciate this user's approach because it is helping me to learn more, rather than other editors just approaching the issue with nothing but criticism, to which I have experienced more than enough here, and for which I lose respect for such editors very quickly when their approach is completely negative. My concern also remains that too many editors are too quick to want to just delete another's work rather than contribute to and/or expand it. If they see something that they simply don't like, they want to axe it rather than make an effort to make it better. As I've observed, regarding those editors who simply "don't like" something and/or are averse to it, it is much easier for them to take action on their own biases and lack of professional courtesy, and just work to get it deleted. Of course, I understand that Wikipedia is a voluntary organization, and anyone can edit Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that the organization is any better for it. That is where I continue to stand as I had expected more and better when I came here to contribute. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We expected more and better of you, too, when you can here to contribute. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Dianna_Gernatt_Saraf pretty much sums it up:
  • Delete ...
  • Delete ...
  • Delete ...
  • Delete ...
  • Delete ...
  • Delete ...
  • Comment Thank you all for making me regret ever becoming a member of this organization. Daniellagreen
(There's some good advice for you at the end of that discussion, which you don't seem to have taken to heart.) EEng (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eeng, you are an individual who appear to love to add more fuel to the fire and create more conflict. I am done communicating with you because it is not productive or constructive. I feel sorry for you, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the other 50 editors who have tried to help you understand guidelines on notability and appropriate article content, and how Wikipedia works? Are you done with them too? You've absolutely got to stop complaining about imagined mistreatement and start paying attention to content. EEng (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, inter-article linking can be handled by a see also section. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other editors keep deleting the 'see also' sections due to MOS guidelines. I have added to and expanded the template so that additional relevance and notability has been further evidenced. It appears that there is a consensus to delete, but again, as with other situations that I've experienced here, notability has been established, and it seems to be just personal opinions that are driving these type of decisions. Guidelines should be followed rather than chalking the final decision up to a majority decision that seems misguided. What are the guidelines for if they aren't going to be followed? This, again, is the main reason why I am no longer very activity involved here. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 16:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template now includes 7 articles that are notable, and that are all associated with the subject. I would think that is sufficient enough to maintain the template. If it is deleted now, it will definitely confirm my belief that people's perspectives take higher precedence than Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Simply because there is a majority who wish to delete does not mean that guidelines and policies have been adequately followed by them, as will be evident should the template be deleted. The person who put the template up for deletion in the first place has now remained silent about further expansions, but could now retract her vote. Another editor who ranted about this and many other related issues, but which issues are actually separate from this template, basically made a poor reflection on themself, focusing on negativity rather than what the template actually contributes to Wikipedia as a project. Again, as has been my usual experience here, too many editors (most, in fact) are too quick and keen to simply delete others' work rather than make any effort to enhance or improve it. This has been evident with all those editors who have commented on this issue, except for myself. Approaching these types of things with a positive attitude of how improvement and enhancement can be achieved is much more productive, as well as professionally courteous, than unnecessarily taking an axe to work that has achieved merit for being maintained here. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 14:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relict of extensive over-coverage of one particular family of only local importance, even if the articles have been written in perfect good faith and without a coi. We should not start a precent for this sort of extra level of linkage, if it is present elsewhere we should remove those also. References in the articles are quite sufficient. It's admitted that the see also's are inappropriate, and this is even more so. And, by the by , I have strong doubts that all the articles will remain in Wikipedia, at least in their present form. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gernatt_Family_of_Companies EEng (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2014 (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:Blockquotetop 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) 01:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Blockquotetop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Blockquotebottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Wikimarkup <blockquote>, and with unnecessary styling. Subst: the mere 115 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete as redundant or make subst-only —PC-XT+ 21:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Replace with {{Quotation}} per Gadget850, or at least rename to {{Quotation top}} and {{Quotation bottom}} —PC-XT+ 07:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 17:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I use this, for whatever it's worth, and I like having the border around my blockquotes. I can replace the template with the HTML in my text expander—no big deal—but it would mean that others would have to jump through more hoops for the same effect   czar ♔ 22:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and replace with {{quotation}} which has the same features. --  Gadget850 talk 23:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly delete and replace with {{quotation}}, if analysis shows no technical problem. This will take some work, as quotation is a container template, not a top template with a corresponding bottom template. All {{Blockquotetop}}FOO{{Blockquotebottom}} need to be replaced with {{Quotation|1=FOO}}.

    Concern: There may be a technical reason this exists as two templates, in which case it should be kept. I note that {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} coexist with {{Collapse}}, and they are directly analogous. Note also that {{discussion top}} & {{discussion bottom}}, and {{hat}} & {{hab}}, are split templates. This must be for a reason, my guess that some forms of markup fail when put in a container template like {{Quotation}} and {{Collapse}}.

    If this is the case, then keep but renamed to Template:Quotation top and Template:Quotation bottom, and make their CSS match better. It's misleading to call this blockquotetop (or blockquote top) as it implies a plain <blockquote> wrapper.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Renaming would be ok with me —PC-XT+ 17:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for existance of Collapse top and collapse bottom is because they are often used for large discussions with intricate nesting, that would be awkward to fit entirely in to a parameter of a template. Another reason is there is a limit of how much text may actually be passed in to a template parameter. The top/bottom templates are a bit of a hack to get around that. I doubt this would ever be the case for quotations for which this markup is desirable in any case, and if we can see no requirement for it now (if all current uses can be replaced) I don't really see it for the future either. Getting rid of this hack and streamlining quotation templates looks good to me. (this is a delete !vote) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have just replaced all article-space instances of this pair of templates (example) and found none of the technical issues suggested above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 19 October 2014 (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:QuoteHadith 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 to delete, but some consensus to consider rewriting it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 42 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions: How would this be replaced? It does not seem possible at all to replace with with one of the stock quotation templates; as this has many Islam-specific parameters. I get the impression that the nom has not carefully examined many of the tempaltes in this spate of nominations, because I find myself objecting to about half of them. Why is this template any more objectionable than anything in Category:Specific-source templates? It basically is one, that also happens to include a quotation and other features. Those are a subcategory of Category:Typing aid templates and we're quite tolerant of those; how do we know that there won't at some point be a large number of additional uses of {{QuoteHadith}}? I rather suspect there will be. Keep by default unless there are good answers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would re-writing the template in terms of the Quotation template be a good idea where we can the best of both worlds? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite, then reconsider. Frietjes (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2014 (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:Silrbq 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) 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere eight transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I invented the template as part of a more ambitious project with the aim of making "Simple-In-Line-References" akin to the Harvard type more user-friendly for editors who have to insert references etc. which require "first= ...."; "last= ...." etc entries. I found this detailed input a laborious chore. Unfortunately, owing to ill-health, I had to abandon the project and, to be realistic, I cannot see how I shall ever have the mental energy for such a sustained programming effort or its becoming a sufficient priority again to work on it particularly since the "cite" and "citation" templates which it mimicked have been reprogrammed. I suggest you check for template:silr.... and eliminate the lot. PS I learned a lot of useful things about templates and writing them in the process! The template {{silr used}} should identify most pages on which this type appears. — Jpacobb (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole set per Jpacobb. Can they be speedied with {{db-author}}?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:42, 14 October 2014 (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:Srigranth 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 to delete, but some consensus to consider rewriting it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere eight transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions: How would this be replaced? Why is it any more objectionable than anything in Category:Specific-source templates? It basically is one, that also happens to include a quotation. Those are a subcategory of Category:Typing aid templates and we're quite tolerant of those; how do we know that there won't at some point be a large number of additional uses of {{Srigranth}}? Keep by default unless there are good answers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is different from other templates in that category in that it is "redundant to other quote templates", and has a "mere eight transclusions" (not to mention that on initial inspection, most of the templates in that category appear to be citation templates). What makes you believe that it is necessary? "It might be used in future" is not a reason to keep at AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • split off the citation part to, say {{cite srigranth}} or whatever. Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2014 (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:Retell 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) 05:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the single transclusion should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 11 October 2014 (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:Imagequote2 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. 28bytes (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imagequote2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 78 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Which template or templates performs the same function (or an acceptable similar function)? EEng (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: What I don't get is why all the other quote templates can't "play nice", as this one does, with left-floated images. Until I discovered it I had pretty much given up on left-floating anything except in very special circumstances where it was certain a blockquote wouldn't become adjacent (which is hard to ensure given the range of zooms and window sizes). And because imagequote2 has a slightly different margin than {{quote}}, I just use it all the time for consistency. (Of course, quote has all the bells and whistles like source and so on, which imagequote2 lacks.) EEng (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ditto question from me (per EEng). I've found the template useful. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until redundancy is demonstrated —PC-XT+ 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Doesn't matter. it is a fine template. Removing it would cause issues in articles like Appleton Thorn EoRdE6 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop in comment for Wikiprojects FA. This looks unanimous, and after three days no further comments were added. If needed then consider starting an RfC to see if anyone else is supporting. Otherwise restoring current template and removing graphic visual flag in FA text. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not unanimous; and we don't use RfCs for routine template deletion matters; that's what TfD - this page - is for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to all above: Redundancy is demonstrated in this edit to 'Appleton Thorn' (though the article could perhaps be further improved by moving the image to the infobox). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't demonstrate redundancy. Not clear what you thought you were doing with that edit -- apparently trying to change the layout so the blockquote isn't adjacent to the image -- but in any event, in your version the quote is still next to the image, and (no longer enclosed by imagequote2) now improperly formatted. I've reverted your edit. EEng (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You allege "improperly formatted", without specifying how so. Nonetheless, redundancy is also demonstrated in this alternative edit. It's also not, as you suggest it is, a proper "blockquote" - see below.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The template allows blockquotes (or similarly formatted material) to be properly indented when adjacent to a left-floated image -- this indenting doesn't work properly with any other (AFAIK) of the quote family of templates. What your edit demonstrates is that that the problem is no longer manifest if you move all the images from the left side of the page to the right. That might charitably be called disingenuous on your part. Template space is a complete mess, with unbelievable amounts of crap and redundancy, and I applaud your efforts to address that. But there's plenty to do along those lines without fighting to delete a template which clearly does something none of us knows another way to do, and which is clearly needed. EEng (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If, as you seem to suggest, the real purpose of this template is to indent (I recently removed some instances of the nominated template which were not marking up quotations at all; perhaps that's why it was used there) then that functionality can be included (merged) into one or more of the more common quotation templates - and plenty of editors are capable of doing that. That aside, rearranging the content of a page to remove the need for a clumsy, semantically flawed and unnecessary hack is not "disingenuous", it is good practice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and modify one of the other quote templates to incorporate the formatting improvement. What we have here is "template Version 1", which has a little formatting bug, and "template Version 2," which doesn't have the bug. The obvious solution is to merge Version 2 into Version 1, so that we are left with "template Version Only", containing no bugs. Someone skilled in CSS should make that change. —Quuxplusone (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to the above: This template is also harmful, because it applies a layout table, not the semantically-meaningful and correct <blockquote>. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even more further to the above: Harmful to what? Big deal. If you care about such minutiae, then fix it. But in the meantime, the layout of many articles depends on this. Whether you fix it, or leave it alone, or point to a real replacement, stop wasting our time. Jeesh. EEng (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just like cutting off the finger will "fix" the hangnail. Now you are being disingenuous. Can we have a close on this, please? EEng (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I don't think this should be merged, because the formatting is completely different, and the other is preferable. It isn't redundant, though articles may be reorganized to get rid of it. Until the article reorganization changes are accepted, I won't !vote to delete. —PC-XT+ 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, can we please close this now? Phineas Gage will be linked from the DYK section of the main page in the next few days, and it would be nice if it weren't littered with those teensy "This template is being considered for deletion" messages. And please, POTW, don't go hacking the layout just to prove this template "isn't needed" as long as every article using it is appropriately cramped and twisted. EEng (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but cussed stubbornness by the nominator is. Anyway, this isn't a discussion anymore, since everyone but you gets the point. This is stupid as hell. Really, can we please close this now? (There -- I've said it again.) EEng (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly won't go changing this formatting en masse, if at all. —PC-XT+ 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Would support deletion after the specific functionality offered by this template (and referred to above) can be integrated into one of the other quote templates and shown to work in the same fashion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Completely agree with that. Now can we close? EEng (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for exactly the same reasons that others above have pointed out, as there is no other way to correctly align block quotes adjacent to left-aligned images. Eric Corbett 11:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...apart from merging that functionality into one or more of the other quotation templates, such as {{Quote}}, as I suggested above. Note again that anything using {{Imagequote2}} is not, semantically, marked as a blockquote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but see, no one but you gives a shit about whether Wikipedia templates have semantic phenomenology and Backus-Naur recursive cleanliness depth and stuff like that. If you care, then you fix it or merge it or whatever you want. If you add the functionality to the more standard quote or blockquote, then feel free to come back here for a merge proposal; no one will object. In the meantime leave the articles alone and the functionality available, and stop wasting our time with this delete request, which is a nonstarter. Now can we please close this, and get the stupid deletion notice out of all these articles? EEng (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could discuss a null blockquote or something to pull this template more in line with the others on the talk page, (I'll watch it, myself,) and eventually move that functionality over in some way, but I think this TfD can be closed, at least for now. —PC-XT+ 03:46, 24 October 2014 (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:Bxtn 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) 22:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 21 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment This is not a quote template. --  Gadget850 talk 19:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its documentation states that it is "to format examples of style, especially when using quotation marks or italics could be confusing". See that documentation for the wide variety of alternatives, to which it is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is part of the {{xt}} series of Manual of Style and template documentation formatting templates; nothing to do with redundant quotation templates. It's not any kind of "maintenance workload" problem and its low inclusion count is intentional; it's only used in the MOS and in some templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being 'part of' is no argument. There is a high maintenance penalty because all the CSS is inline; if a basic property must be changed, all templates must be changed. It is also redundant to standard bold markup inside {{xt}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It certainly is an argument; we do not break systems of templates by deleting random parts of them just to make a point. "The CSS is inline" is the "no argument" here; just put it in a class. No rationale for deletion at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nice, simple, useful set of templates for documentation. I'll use them more now that I know about them (instead of direct HTML/CSS or {{font color}} etc.). I don't see any significant maintenance burden. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If kept, could these use classes that are controlled by CSS elsewhere, so updating styling will not be so much of a load? —PC-XT+ 03:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. We can even do that now. It seems to me that one party urging deletion of some of these is also frequently a roadblock to getting new classes added to site-wide CSS, but I don't think that's an official role.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandish. While a good faith nomination, seems the nom didn't examine the purpose of these templates well enough before nominating. Number of pages with transclusions is not always a sufficient metric to determine why a formatting template exists. These templates are used upwards of dozens of times on each of the MOS pages, and were specifically created to ease formatting of examples on these major guideline pages, as they play a distinct and critical role in the encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve CSS handling —PC-XT+ 18:32, 14 October 2014 (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:Bxt 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) 22:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 147 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Same goes for {{!bxt}} as well. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is part of the {{xt}} series of Manual of Style and template documentation formatting templates; nothing to do with redundant quotation templates. It's not any kind of "maintenance workload" problem and its low inclusion count is intentional; it's only used in the MOS and in some templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Non-redundant, in that none of the other ones produce the same formatting, and useful, in the sense that it clearly is being used. Incidentally, by not noincluding the TfD notice, the nominator completely screwed up the formatting on all the citation and cite template documentation pages, which use this template to format some of their examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nice, simple, useful set of templates for documentation. I'll use them more now that I know about them (instead of direct HTML/CSS or {{font color}} etc.). I don't see any significant maintenance burden. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandish. While a good faith nomination, seems the nom didn't examine the purpose of these templates well enough before nominating. Number of pages with transclusions is not always a sufficient metric to determine why a formatting template exists. These templates are used upwards of dozens of times on each of the MOS pages, and were specifically created to ease formatting of examples on these major guideline pages, as they play a distinct and critical role in the encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve CSS handling —PC-XT+ 18:33, 14 October 2014 (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:Mxt 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) 22:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere twenty transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Same goes for {{!mxt}} as well. This template was recently introduced, but shows text too small. It is also completely redundant to <code>...</code> and <kbd>...</kbd>. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Recently introduced" is not a rationale for deletion. Needing a minor CSS fix for font size is not a rationale for deletion. Being a template wrapper for HTML or XML is not a deletion rationale (we have many such templates). Many of us find entering <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> all the time to be a huge pain in backside, so having a Category:Typing aid templates for it is very useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not redundant. It adds the green or red font color. The font size should be the same as it would be with <tt> or <code>, though I suppose it may be possible to configure a browser such that it forces the use of a small font size for a non-proportional font. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is part of the {{xt}} series of Manual of Style and template documentation formatting templates; nothing to do with redundant quotation templates. It's not any kind of "maintenance workload" problem and its low inclusion count is intentional; it's only used in the MOS and in some templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Both bold and serif fonts (the other two contrasting methods in this group of templates) are harder to read than sans-serif. Mono-space fonts, on the other hand, are easier to read, so this an entirely reasonable extension of the {{xt}}. It stands to reason that new templates (it's 12 days old) are hardly used – that has nothing to do with whether they have value. There are probably many places that currently use HTML or CSS that could/should use these instead. I don't see any significant maintenance burden. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SMcCandish. While a good faith nomination, seems the nom didn't examine the purpose of these templates well enough before nominating. Number of pages with transclusions is not always a sufficient metric to determine why a formatting template exists. These templates are used upwards of dozens of times on each of the MOS pages, and were specifically created to ease formatting of examples on these major guideline pages, as they play a distinct and critical role in the encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve CSS handling —PC-XT+ 18:37, 14 October 2014 (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:Cqa 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 as redundant to {{centered pull quote}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere seven transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Redundant. Calls {{centered pull quote}} with the parameters remapped. --  Gadget850 talk 19:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per nom. This no longer serves any purpose, and we have too many pull-quote templates as it is, frequently abused as block quote templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant —PC-XT+ 07:39, 12 October 2014 (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:Quotation1 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 merge/delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quotation1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 126 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Redundant to {{quotation}}. Uses a table instead of <blockquote> so there are no quote semantics. Per the documentation it differs from {{quotation}} in that it has no margins, but the included padding gives the same effect. --  Gadget850 talk 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but ask on talk pages of both tempaltes' talk pages if there are any features that need to be merged.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per above —PC-XT+ 01:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and replace with {{quote}}, preferably after the changes there go though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2014 (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:Qq 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, particularly {{tq}}, with one of which the mere 87 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Couldn't we refactor so that the concern of maintenance workload is addressed? I see this particular template as a shorthand to {{tq}}. Having to manually format and add double quotes around {{tq}} or use several options to achieve the desired effect seems to be the very reason this template was created. — MusikAnimal talk 22:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{tq}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. I'll post notification on Template talk:Tq —PC-XT+ 01:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure there is a subtle way to merge with Tq. The primary reason I've used Qq is the difference in default options (quotation marks and italics, among them); it's just intended to be quicker. It has a few novel features too, but they aren't its primary purpose. If we changed the default options in Tq, we'd be changing the presentation of thousands of already existing comments in undesirable ways. In essence, I believe a vote to merge is a vote to delete.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, the current default usage would probably be replaced with specific formatting/parameters added to Tq. This would basically delete the default behavior, as you say. If this is more of a typing aid, maybe merging both to a module that sets defaults according to the template used would be the best solution. —PC-XT+ 21:56, 20 October 2014 (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:Vquote 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 replacing with {{pull quote}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 39 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 11 October 2014 (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:Pquote 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 replacing with {{quote box}} (it's already a frontend for that template). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 127 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 11 October 2014 (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:Lquote 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 Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the fewer than 100 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 11 October 2014 (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:Jimboquote 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) 03:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete per nom. This one is super-mega-extra pointless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this like certain editions of the New Testament, in which the words of Jesus are given in red? [2] EEng (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2014 (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:Quote box4 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) 03:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quote box4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 56 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 11 October 2014 (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.

Templates for Unicode blocks with no code chart 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) 03:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unicode chart Private Use Area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unicode chart Supplementary Private Use Area-A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unicode chart Supplementary Private Use Area-B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unicode chart Low Surrogates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unicode chart High Surrogates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unicode chart Unassigned (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are redundant as they only contain plain text, and are only used in a single article each. Templates are required for other Unicode blocks because of their code charts, but for Unicode blocks with no code chart it is best to simply write the appropriate text into the article as necessary. BabelStone (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{Unicode chart Unassigned}} created today by the same user. This template is not only redundant but is completely wrong as it implies that only the range U+2FF80 through U+2FF8F is unassigned in the Unicode code space (as of Unicode 7.0 there are 861,509 unassigned code points), and it incorrectly marks U+2FF8E and U+2FF8F as non-characters. BabelStone (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and think they should be deleted. They aren't charts at all and the text belongs in the subject articles. If we find a need for actual charts for Private Use Areas we can add them in the future. (Charts for Surrogates make no sense whatsoever.) DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete all as single-use templates —PC-XT+ 21:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If doubts arise here, I'll comment on the names. They were created in good faith, we should keep the editor on board. -DePiep (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete all (after fixing new one); article content should not be "hidden" in templates for no reason; we got rid of article subpages as a matter of policy in the early days if WP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the nom argument is that these are not even 'charts' in the Unicode sense ('chart' is the word used by Unicode). Those listed here don't show characters (compare regular Template:Unicode chart Cyrillic). So because of this, nom does not even suggest substituting the templates, they are considered empty. -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2014 (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:Ballet terms 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) 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ballet terms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per suggestion on the talk page, I have removed this from articles which were transcluding {{ballet}}, which makes this now unused and redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - it is redundant and won't be useful unless (and until) many more terms appear in {{ballet}}, making it an excessively large section. Lambtron (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a reason to have one navbox that's a subset of another. --ais523 17:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused/redundant —PC-XT+ 21:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lambtron. This is what glossary articles are for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:13, 14 October 2014 (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:Miss Grand International 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) 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss Grand International (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates nothing Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON for a navbox —PC-XT+ 21:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no legit purpose; two links can just easily be put in a "See also" section if they're not already linked in the article at hand, which is unlikely anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 14 October 2014 (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:Rahul Sankrityayan 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) 02:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rahul Sankrityayan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two blue links in it, I find this huge template quite unnecessary. I also doubt there would be many articles written here on WP which would eventually fill the template in near future. With no bias for future creation I would request for deletion as for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now — I find this nomination to be reasonable —PC-XT+ 21:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no legit purpose; two links can just easily be put in a "See also" section if they're not already linked in the article at hand, which is unlikely anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:14, 14 October 2014 (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/2014_October_11&oldid=1136430172"