Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 21

[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 and replace with individual templated links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web presence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, in my opinion, is not such a good idea for a few reasons: (1) Multiple links to social networking sites is generally frowned upon per WP:ELNO, although certainly not forbidden, (2) Generally, one link to an official website is enough since there is no need for a WP:LINKFARM, although there are obviously exceptions to this rule, (3) The formatting as a floating infobox is atypical, and there is no strong reason why the links couldn't be replaced by standard uses of {{twitter}}, {{myspace}}, {{facebook}}, {{official website}}, ... (4) It has been some time since the initial nomination, and it doesn't seem to have gained much traction (probably for the reasons given above). Hence, I propose this template for deletion. The single transclusion can be replaced with individual EL templates if deemed appropriate. 68.35.13.81 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 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.
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 but should be renamed, which can be discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Category diffuse}}, also bad template name. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:41, 21 September 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.
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 at this time, however, should be reconsidered if/when a better system is put in place. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyvio-histpurge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template was created and used as a crutch for one specific purpose: for articles created as copyvios but then rewritten from scratch, as a means to request administrator attention in order to selectively delete the portions of the article history before the rewrite.

With the introduction of revision deletion as a feature, admins now have a much more convenient and flexible tool at their disposal to handle such situations, but also, by merely hiding revision text while keeping editor name and edit summaries intact, to ensure that the originator of the article and possible contributors who added research (RS for instance) to the article prior to the rewrite still get credited for their work.

As one of the editors behind this template, I believe it has outlived its usefulness, but others may want to weigh in. MLauba (Talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If deleted, how would users tag articles that require revision deletion? As I understand from reading the above, all that has changed are the tools available to admins to carry out such deletions. PC78 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a fair question but I'd say the answer should be sought for more than copyvio issues, and both the tagging and the corresponding need for revision deletion publicized wider than just within the very small circle who uses the above template today. MLauba (Talk) 16:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I guess I agree in principle, but unless there is some kind of mechanism for requesting revision deletion (I'm guessing there isn't at the moment) then I think that deletion of this template (and presumably the associated category) is perhaps a bit premature. PC78 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 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.