Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 12
| < October 11 | October 13 > |
|---|
October 12
[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Completely unused. Magioladitis (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: This is planned to be used by WP:GLAM/TCMI. As the creator: please leave it be for a while; it will see use soon enough. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. My concern here is that this is a WikiProject template, while the corresponding project is not a WikiProject. That may just be splitting hairs, but will the project actively be tagging and assessing articles as one of its tasks? PC78 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it will be. This is the same style of project as the Wikipedian-in-residence project that Witty lama did. That has since evolved to become more strictly a WikiProject (and WikiProject template), but it started out simply using the WikiProject infrastructure as a means to enable easy maintenance of qualitative assessments of those articles in the project's scope. This is along the same lines. In any case, there's little point in deleting it as it'll merely be an annoyance to me to undelete it once it's about to be put into active use. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then by all means, keep. PC78 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it will be. This is the same style of project as the Wikipedian-in-residence project that Witty lama did. That has since evolved to become more strictly a WikiProject (and WikiProject template), but it started out simply using the WikiProject infrastructure as a means to enable easy maintenance of qualitative assessments of those articles in the project's scope. This is along the same lines. In any case, there's little point in deleting it as it'll merely be an annoyance to me to undelete it once it's about to be put into active use. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 03:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Template:TV5 Comedy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant to {{TV5}}. Template:TV5 was incorrectly created at Template talk:TV5 and manually copied to articles but this has been fixed. AussieLegend (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, you may also delete Template:TV5 since it contains mostly hoax information. As I have observed, most edits that came from the 203.115.xxx.xxx IP address were mostly hoaxes, most probably a sockpuppet of User:ArnoldDumlao -WayKurat (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know which links at Template:TV5 are hoaxes but deleting every link except the first[1] is not appropriate until that has been confirmed. If the articles that are linked to are hoaxes, the correct procedures should be followed to have them deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- What I am pointing out here is that IP range has a history of creating articles using redirects that has no way connected on what article he/she is creating. And besides, the template should fall under WP:Listcruft since all of the network's shows are in that template. Another note, that template should be speedy deleted in the first place since it was created in a talk page. -WayKurat (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know which links at Template:TV5 are hoaxes but deleting every link except the first[1] is not appropriate until that has been confirmed. If the articles that are linked to are hoaxes, the correct procedures should be followed to have them deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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) 03:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Linescore2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Linescore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Linescore2 with Template:Linescore.
Template:Linescore2 appears to be a fork of Template:Linescore (it even uses the same documentation page). Since the fork is currently only used in three articles, I suggest that it be merged. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not obvious what the differences are in the fork. If it adds useful features then they should be backported and the template redirected. If it doesn't add useful features it falls under T3 as substantial and unneeded duplication of an existing template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.