Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 27

< June 26	June 28 >

June 27 edit

Template:Infobox POC-PSC PNG 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) 20:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox POC-PSC PNG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to {{Infobox sport tournament}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox company network 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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox company network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Alakzi (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2015 (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:Longitem 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. But, please do continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

An ugly CSS hack, the purpose of which is to reduce the leading of multi-line infobox and navbox labels for aesthetic reasons. Should the leading need to be adjusted, that ought to be done in one of our stylesheets. Alakzi (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please explain (which stylesheets etc.) - it has 450,000 transclusions. Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that a discussion be held at Mediawiki talk:Common.css to decide whether infobox and navbox labels require a reduced leading. Whatever happens, this template should not be kept. Alakzi (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary hack. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, I would like to see a wider discussion (say at Mediawiki talk:Common.css) first. it's clear to me that we could make a 'longitem' class, and then use <div class="longitem"> ... </div>. however, if we did that, this would become a wrapper. if (1) the position is that we never need to override the default line-spacing, then fine, this template can go, but it would be good to have a wider discussion. if (2) the position is that we can magically remove the need for this template with a change to the common style sheet, I would like to see that first. since, it's not clear to me that you could achieve the same result with such a simple change. Note, there is also {{longlink}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (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:ChoralWikiNoScores 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) 20:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template had only one transclusion that has been easily converted to {{ChoralWiki}}, which everyone uses (1040 transclusions). Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2015 (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:ChoralWikiName 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) 20:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template had only one transclusion that has been easily converted to {{ChoralWiki}}, which everyone uses (1040 transclusions). Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2015 (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:Subject bar edit

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 July 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 relisted on 2015 July 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (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:Campaignbox 2015 Ramadan attacks 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) 20:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox 2015 Ramadan attacks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If 2015 Ramadan attacks is going to be deleted, so should this template, which is based on a supposedly hypothetical topic. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I don't think we should keep 2015 Ramadan attacks, it would be appropriate if the attacks were tightly coordinated (similar to September 11 attacks). However, even then, this would not be an appropriate template. This is not a "campaign", and these are not battles. If there were such a template (which is not established) it would need to be named and implemented differently and go in the bottom of the article, like {{September 11 attacks}}. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the exact same reasoning I provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Ramadan attacks. RichardOSmith (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worthy as special template- Varma 05:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.55.51 (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete term "Ramadan" is POV/SOAP for ISIL, the links between these attacks needs to be discussed in the article body (it's debatable if there is one) - especially for AMISOM, when the current phase of the war in Somalia has been ongoing since 2009. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the main article has been proposed to be renamed by someone, see Talk:2015 Ramadan attacks -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I voted in favor of keeping the article but there is no reason for this template. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for God's Sake There not battles, they're terrorist attacks. The attack are planned by different terrorist groups. How can it be connected when a ISIS leader calls for attacks days before, Somalia has a terrorist attack but with Al-Shabbab instead of ISIS. 174.113.217.132 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename Bloody Friday - duh, for some reason I thought it was the infobox being deleted and thought that was a custom job. I didn't notice this box. Yes, definitely keep; it doesn't matter that different perpetrators did the attacks as significant coverage is of them as a whole. Somalia should be removed - it's not being discussed together with the three others as of yet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It remains unproven that there is any relationship other than coincidence among these disparate events. WWGB (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015).GreyShark (dibra) 21:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Matt - this is a different situation to the article, as a string of probably uncoordinated attacks on the same day isn't what the campaign/battle box is for. ansh 666 22:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry for my change of vote once again. This should be a regular template. Now that I edited the template I see it was created as a campaign template, which it is not. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's an easy way for readers to see/access all of the articles on the attacks, without having to read through the entire article. Regardless of the type of template being used, it should be kept for the audience's convenience, not deleted due to some editors' dislikes about the template usage. LightandDark2000 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WWGB et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 30 June 2015 (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.