Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 9

< June 8	June 10 >

June 9, 2006

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Stifle (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). --Rory096 04:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sig

Template:Sig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Most useless template ever. All it does is produce your sig, which ~~~~ does and is much shorter than {{subst:sig}}. Instructions on usage on its talk page says that you're supposed to enter your username, so it customizes your sig, but that is untrue- there is no parameter. Custom sigs can be created in one's preferences. --Rory096 21:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I see that it used to have a param to say {{User:username/sig}}, but that's bad too, because it transcludes your sig, which is bad. --Rory096 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – utterly pointless – Gurch 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire. It's nothing but a duplicate of sig in preferences. Ral315 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuperLesbo Killation with X-TREEM FIRE Delete - Can't we just type ~~~ or ~~~~? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (note that my signature was typed with four tildes and not a redundant template)[reply]
Strongest delete vote possible - not useful in the slightest. {{sig}} is longer than ~~~~ and doesn't even work, it needs to be subst-ed, which is even longer. Plus it uses a horrible hack to do this. I support Ral315's suggestion of involving fire, but I would like elephants and anthrax involved as well. --Sam Pointon 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (that sig was done the proper way.)[reply]

Delete — It's pointless. a thing 21:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been both bold and unilateral, and have blanked this template, justification being left on the talk page. robchurch | talk 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rare case where I (generally a policy nutjob) would be willing to endorse an out-of-process speedy delete. It was clearly created by a newbie who had little idea what they were doing; templates aren't allowed to be transcluded in signatures; and the version as modified served absolutely no purpose at all, since it only worked if substed and in that case produced ~~~~, which was much shorter than the text required to actually subst the template. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Utterly pointless. So pointless, in fact, that I suggest beating it with a snow shovel despite my usual love of process. --Icarus 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT, WAIT, KEEP!. Just kidding, Strong Delete. Sorry, I had to be part of this legendary deletion debate. --Liface 23:45, 9 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted -- Drini 23:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star Wars Portal

This is redundant, Template:Portal does the job already. Janizary 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — redundant — a thing 01:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 14:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but with the request that you wait a few days before orphaning so the SW WikiProject can discuss choosing a replacement image for the current broken one. It'd be a lot easier to fix now than after deletion. BryanG^(talk) 01:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CG 11:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but per BryanG's suggestion. --Doug (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- Drini 23:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox OS 2

Note: delete Template:Latest_stable_release/whatever and Template:Latest_release_date/whatever also. a thing 07:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete this? I'm afraid I don't understand/see the reason given... RN 09:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It serves no purpose. See the bottom of Template talk:Infobox Software#Outsourcing of latest release version.2Fdate. a thing 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I don't understand the reasons either - mastodon 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_OS_2 shows quite a bit of important pages use it, and I don't see what's wrong with it. ShaunES 01:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

So you're saying nothing popular should change? — a thing 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep AlistairMcMillan 15:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Deletion makes no sense. Reason given for deletion is way too vague. --soum^সৌমোyasch 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It does serve a purpose. And there are many articles that use it. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 17:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, obviously. Phoenix2 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I think it's a preposterous idea. No specific reason for deleting, it's certainly not confusing at all, and too many articles use it to be worth fixing/moving to a new template. --Ultimus 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all above. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:50, 11 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. IceKarma ॐ 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:!-

Keep. It's necessary for ParserFunctions. See Template:!. --Rory096 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can point out where it's actually being used. As far as I know, {{!}}- works just fine, so this is no longer necessary. Kirill Lokshin 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what links here shows no transclusions, the only links are from TfD and one redirects, which also has no external links. Charon X/talk 19:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused template. This has nothing to do with parser functions. Doing {{!}}- gives the same effect.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 17:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A really bad idea to delete. It isn't linked because it's being subst:'ed instead. I have no clear idea of why it was created or why {!} isn't good enough; perhaps it is. Let's none of us be so arrogant as to assume that we know everything. I would guess that this is used in some obscure, technical fashion that will totally break if the template is tagged or otherwise screwed with. This was created by the respected, long-time editor Ed Poor, who surely will be kind enough to discuss his rationale if asked nicely. He may be wrong and may be induced to do things a different way; but there is no need for us to salvage a few K of disk space in order to ruin his day prematurely. John Reid 19:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you look at the explanation for the ! template it explicity states that this template will never be substituted. The !- template links to the ! template, which leads me to believe that the same guidelines hold true. I believe I have a pretty decent knowledge of template syntax, and I can tell you that substituting is exactly the same thing as placing in text. Substituting is simply a shortcut. I somehow doubt you need to shortcut typing in |-. --SomeStranger^(t|c) 21:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending input from Ed Poor as suggested by John Reid. This actually looks like part of a wiki-table construction template set, but as in John's case, I can only speculate on it's actual function. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The purpose of this template is to get around a conflict between table markup and template/parser function syntax. All three use the '|' character and this creates problems when you try to place table markup inside a template or parser function. Any '|' located within a template/parserfunction call is going to be treated as the start of the next parameter... so '|-' would be evaluated as a new parameter of value '-' rather than as table markup indicating a new row. This template and the '!' template get around that problem by moving the '|' character to another template so that it will be evaluated independantly of the template / parser function call it is located in. Only the '|' character is problematic so {{!}}- = {{!-}}. Thus, this template is not strictly needed, but it also does no harm. If someone were to make a {{!!}} for the one remaining form of table markup that uses pipe characters I think that would be an improvement on the current {{!}}{{!}} method of getting the '||' markup. --CBDunkerson 10:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - mostly harmless, probably the author prefers to protect a unit "|-" instead of only "|", and maybe he has another solution for "||". This can be done with "{{!}}-" and "{{!}}{{!}}" resp. Disadvantage of additional templates: More stuff to protect against vandals, needs a link to Template:!(edit talk links history) for the explanation, needs an entry on "do not subst unless you know what you're doing" lists under threat of immediate de-bot-ting, and it should be in this new Category:Wikipedia workaround templates. How about adding <noinclude>{{tdeprecated|use={{!}}-}}</noinclude>, that could be the fastest way to deal with it. -- Omniplex 03:36, 16 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect to {{DreyfusAffair}} Pagra shtak 04:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dreyfusaffair

Template:Dreyfusaffair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{DreyfusAffair}}. The only difference is a redlink. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination by Seventy 3. LINUXERIST@ 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 16:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant. BD2412 T 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
redirect to discourage accidental recreation. Septentrionalis 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Septentrionalis. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:04, 19 June 2006 (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 page.