Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 22

< July 21	July 23 >

July 22

Template:Test0

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 Redirect with no objection to taking the redirect to RFD Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been replaced by the standardized UW template Template:uw-vandalism1 in furtherance of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. Bsherr (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? Since many people remember the "test" sequence. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 28 July 2010 (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:Nothanks-personal

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) 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nothanks-personal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-autobiography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Nothanks-personal with Template:Uw-autobiography.
This template is to be merged into the standardized UW template in furtherance of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. The discussion page of the template reveals that it was originally created to deal with autobiographies, although it's use is potentially wider in that it also covers the pages containing the creator's own ideas. Template:uw-autobiography is proposed as the redirect destination because it concerns the identified primary purpose. Template:uw-coi covers the other possible purposes. There has been no recent work on this template. Bsherr (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On second thought, deletion instead of a redirect may be better. It would avoid unintentional use of the new template for the old without referring to its documentation. And it's always substituted, so it will affect no existing uses. Bsherr (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:34, 24 July 2010 (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:Location map India Tripura

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map India Tripura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

use no where - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not used and an image doesn't need its own info template. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2010 (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:List of Ottoman Serbian Grand Viziers

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Ottoman Serbian Grand Viziers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, redundant to Template:Grand Viziers of Ottoman Empire EmanWilm (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (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:Merge JRRT

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merge JRRT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does WikiProject Middle-earth really need its own merge template? Can't they just use the regular one? Axem Titanium (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm this sort of thing is a pain for SmackBot, but I thnk it might have helped at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth#Forgotten_mergers. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 28 July 2010 (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:Section2

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Section link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Using this template will often make linking to sections within the same article longer. Ex) {{Section2|Foo}} is longer than [[#Foo|Foo]]. Unused, and you should probably just manually insert the section link instead of using this template. The other two for the same reason; it's easier to just use a proper wikilink than to muck around with these templates, which create an extra barrier to novice editors. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to standard markup with no savings. We recently deleted another template with this same functionality ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:06, 22 July 2010 (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:700 Test wickets club

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:700 Test wickets club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates between two articles, and covered with the 400 Test wickets club navigation template. Lugnuts (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough links to justify infobox. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (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:CMS

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Outputs the string "commons:" and THAT'S IT. You can just type out the word when you want to link to commons instead of making a template for it that saves 1 character ("commons:" = 8 characters, "{{CMS}}" = 7 characters). Added Template:MDW because it does the same thing. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:07, 22 July 2010 (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:SIG

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

You can't type out the four tildes like everyone else? Unused. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, not "everyone else" can type out four tildes easily; they're not present on some keyboard layouts or are at least nontrivial to access. However, the edit bar does contain a button to do this....

Second, the template documentation says that it's called from other templates, is there some reason the template can't just literally have the four tildes in them (e.g. it gets substituted if the template page is changed and submitted?)

~~If the first is considered a valid reason to keep, it should be marked as being transclusion~~ If the first is considered a valid reason to keep, it should be made a SUBST template. If the second, it has a purpose and should be kept. Si Trew (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no transclusions, so no other templates are using it. Other templates, such as warnings, do include the signature but are not using a meta-template to do it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I slipped in rephrasing my first comment (now struck out). I meant if kept it should be marked as transclusionless. I have a nagging doubt it might be useful to some editors who, for whatever reason, cannot type tildes easily. This is of course impossible to prove if it's SUBST'd as it should be. Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2010 (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:Environment of the world

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Environment of the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete Unused, predominately redlinks and categories serve the same function. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, categories are sufficient. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2010 (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.