Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21 edit

Template:Jenny Wilson 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jenny Wilson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN, not enough relevant links The Banner talk 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 17:14, 24 February 2014 (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:Food Wikilove templates 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Food Wikilove templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiLove Templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Food Wikilove templates with Template:WikiLove Templates.
This template should be merged with {{WikiLove Templates}} and I am willing to do it should there be a consensus to do so. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 20:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it doesn't seem to be entirely merged. If it was, I would have simply tagged it for CSD:T3 and it would've just been deleted. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - While we could keep both navboxes as they are and avoid the T3 issue by creating a separate template for the sub-boxes that can be transcluded in both, I don't really see the point in having a separate navbox just for the food-related templates. Ibadibam (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Would better be part of the larger template. I would like {{Subst: Dobos Torte}} to be appear as an alternative when one clicks on wikilove. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:23, 15 March 2014 (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 ABU TV National Year 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) 03:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ABU TV National Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 21 February 2014 (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 ABU Radio National Year 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) 03:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ABU Radio National Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 February 2014 (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:Bibliographies of film directors 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) 03:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bibliographies of film directors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a suitable topic for a navbox. Fails all of the five points at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates, and is better suited to a category. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

Let me see:

  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. -Bibliography, world cinema
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. -list of books yup
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. -they're related
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. -film director
  5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. -Yup, suitable for linking at the bottom of the relative articles on the biographies.

Clearly ticks all 5 boxes or at least will if you'd give me a few hours to actually work on it, what are you talking about? This basically comes down to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Bad faith nom nominated just 2 hours after creation without even giving me a chance to develop it. It's intended to be constructive and I'm sure others here would agree with me. There's unlikely to be many more entries in it as it's for directors who really have a wealth of material. It's convenient to browse by cinema, which is the whole point of nav boxes in the first place. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all bad faith. It's just too broad a topic for a navbox. We don't have {{Filmographies of film directors}} or {{Bibliographies of authors}} for the same reason. Or {{Biopics about composers}}, etc, etc. Perfectly acceptable for a category, but not a suitable navbox subject. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it too broad?? It's intended as a nav guide for quick reference on books about film directors for people looking for books on them. Its convenient, that's the whole point of navboxes, otherwise you could argue they're all redundant because of categories. Half an hour in and you're already being a meddlesome little turd. There's not likely to be a huge general number like filmographies or authors, books about filmmakers are generally a fairly niche topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yeah, that's where categories are useful. If you look at the guideline discussing the pros and cons of categories, lists and templates, you'll see that this fails all of the points of good templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is still incredibly annoying for you to do this so soon after creation Rob. Common sense tells me that this is constructive and useful to begin building a decent bibliography by director.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's suitable and it shouldn't have been created, for the reasons stated based on the guideline for navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's not about the number of links, it's about the suitability of a topic for a navbox. Anyway, let's see what others think... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your judgement has frequently shown to be wrong and mean little on here Rob so it doesn't matter what you think.The fact is that these are instantly accessible and likely to be what people might be looking for in research material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm - WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And enough with the weasel words about my judgement, we simply don't agree here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously telling me to assume good faith????♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit bemused by your hostility - you seem to be letting a previous disagreement (which I thought we'd called a truce on) bleed over to this discussion. I'm sorry I don't like your navbox, but as I've stated, it doesn't meed any of the criteria for a "good" navbox, and thus I believe it shouldn't be here. Which is why I brought it here to TfD to see what the consensus was on it. No need to take it personally. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern above all is that again you can see I'm actively working hard on something and you're trying to disrupt progress. You keep disrupting a range of people whether it's User:Lady Lotus or whoever when they're in the middle of working on something, usually over red links. If you'd waited at least until I'd created all of the lists and were blue linked I wouldn't have minded so much. Why can't you just keep your thoughts to yourself once in while?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever colour the links, this isn't a suitable navbox topic. And this discussion needs to be about the template - not me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't recall any previous interaction with Lady Lotus, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes it was Montanabw wasn't it whose template you tried to delete..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep - A look at the links suggests that those linked are those with numerous, numerous, numerous, books written about them. May be manageable, but not far enough into development to be sure of that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with some work, this table would do well for users, so many are notable directors. Maybe limit it to US and UK directors. But it would be nice to have a template for it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep: as per Crisco 1492. Best to let the template development run a bit further, rather than making a premature decision to get rid of it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Give it time to be developed. The navbox is comfortably within the range of what a navbox can be about. Trout slap to the nominator. Montanabw(talk) 19:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Templates created by experienced editors who believe in good faith that they will perform a useful function should not be subjected to this sort of instant confrontation. Nobody can doubt Dr. Blofeld's good intentions in this case, especially as he's spent all day creating articles to ensure that the template is fully populated with blue-links. It seems to me that a navbox can provide degrees of categorisation (by nationality in this case), while retaining an overview, that is unavailable in our clunky category system; compare Category:Books about film directors with this template to see the difference. There's room for both navigational aids in our encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yup I've created the first five of each for most. Given time I'll fill them all out like Stanley Kubrick bibliography. They're great for people wanting instant access to film director books I think, I'm sure anybody else who researches film here would find them useful. Now I really must get out of this place! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks good and useful to me, I support arguments above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very useful template. Support per comments above. --krimuk 90 03:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, suitable for navbox; organizes subjects in a logical way; highly beneficial. Supporting Dr. Blofeld's rational. --CyberXRef☎ 20:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Links together similar articles in a convenient way, which is entirely what these templates are for. --Loeba (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Blofeld re-edited his response and put things out of context, I'll address my concerns point by point:
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. - This is not a coherent subject. It just links similar lists.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. - Okay, give you that one, but it's easy to "this is a bibliography of a film director...".
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - They do not refer to each other at all.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. - List of bibliographies of film directors does not exist. There is no main article.
  5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. - You clearly would not want to do this. It would not be appropriate to link Roberto Rossellini bibliography, or the others in the "see also" section of Coen brothers bibliography.
--Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – although this may look a bit threadbare at the moment, I think it has the potential to be quite useful if one was to allow the work to take place. Cassianto (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, we're heading to a snow keep (which I support), with a single editor railing against consensus; citing made-up criteria. He needs to drop the stick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "made up criteria" can be found at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template has the potential to become unusable big, as there is no limit in what is added to the template. Only the category Indian film directors contains 1003 links to directors. They can all be added to the article. The Americans have 3961 entries available for the template. Beside that, what makes is the common ground of these people except their jobtype? The Banner talk 12:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even Raoul Walsh and Fred Zinnerman don't have enough books for bibliographies. There's a pretty limited number which have multiple books about them. Even Quentin Tarantino doesn't cut the mustard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of what ifs. How many of those 3961 American directors are going to get multiple books written about their work? Only a handful. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is stated that the template only concerns directors with a book-form paper biography? The Banner talk 14:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the person who nominated this for deletion would probably not want any statements to that effect in the navbox either. IF the navbox gets unweildy, the navbox links can direct to list articles and to categories, that's the beauty of a navbox, be nice to be able to hop around in the topic, one way or the other :-P Montanabw(talk) 17:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The clue might be in the name: Bibliography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as it seems to have a plan —PC-XT+ 07:37, 26 February 2014 (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:Assassin's Creed chronology 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) 03:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assassin's Creed chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per WP:VG/MOS and WP:GAMECRUFT: in-universe information on how the series are chronologically set. Nothing that can't be explained in the main article of Assassin's Creed. Soetermans. T / C 14:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom as redundant to Template:Assassin's Creed. if the chronology is important, it should be in a section in the article, not in a sidebar. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and add that with the two concurrent "presents" the game uses, the idea of a chronological order gets lost really fast. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I believe that this is helpful for users looking at a singular game in the series, so they know how it fits in with the rest of the storyline in a single glance, and gives them a shortcut to see the rest of the story. Think of shortcuts to programs on your computers. You could say, "Why not go into Program Files to find your program?" However, if you have a shortcut to the program on your desktop, it's just one click to open the program. ∫ A Y™ 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • note Hi, Daylon 124 (I can't make out your signature :P), thanks for reply. I appreciate your input, but we're not discussing templates in general (which are very helpful), but one based on in-universe information. Wikipedia is intended for a wide, general audience, not just people who are into Assassin's Creed. The template merely communicates how the games are chronologically set. It doesn't explain how they relate to each other, which characters are featured or even when the games take place. That is so much information, impossible to fit into one template. The main article is more suitable for that, to show the summarized plot of the whole series. Individual articles offer more detailed plot summaries. What also comes to mind, is that there is way more to the franchise than just the games. See Assassin's Creed#Other media: comics, novels and films, part of the chronology of the series and not mentioned in the template. If it comes to just the games, there is the general {{Assassin's Creed}} template that shows the games in what era they take place, with links to the real-world events. --Soetermans. T / C 11:47, 22 February 2014 (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:Armenian cuisine 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Armenian cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cuisine of Armenia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Armenian cuisine with Template:Cuisine of Armenia.
No big difference Kareyac (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge, keeping the horizontal navbox footer version. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — These are basically the same information. In past discussions of this type, (Turkish, Pakistani, Indian,) I have !voted different ways. Generally, if the template is limited to a series on types of cuisines, I'll say keep but if it is only used as a second navbox, I'll say delete. Template:Chilean cuisine is also up for deletion. —PC-XT+ 08:58, 23 February 2014 (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 material 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) 03:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox material (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions. Redundant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, it's not redundant to anything, or I would not have created it. far better than the alternative. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In use, so hardly redundant. Also, aren't you subject to an Editing restriction "indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes." Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2014 (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 stable isotope 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox stable isotope (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only six transclusions, Appears to be a copy of {{Infobox isotope}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this template predates parserfunctions, so was probably part of a set of templates at that time. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You want to create "only" six redlinks? Propose a proper merge and any "appearance" will be checked seriously, while answering whether it is a functional copy or a different template. Not a way to go to have someone else (closing admin here?) prepare & do & clean up a full content merge. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know? You propose deletion. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a copy (it should have been CSD:T3), it will simply be redirected to the other template when deleted. Hence it will create no redlinks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 22:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what "appears" is enough to declare them equal? -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see the test cases: stable isotope is effectively an outdated fork of isotope, almost all the parameters match except for one or two (which can be added if necessary). From the talk page, it seems that the functions of the two templates were unified over six years ago.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per eh bien mon prince, as now we are getting somewhere. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per Underlying lk|eh bien mon prince —PC-XT+ 09:56, 1 March 2014 (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 siren 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) 02:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox siren (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions Undocumented. Redundant to more generic infoboxes, such as {{Infobox product}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after adding the following parameters to IB product: type, models_made, predecessor/successor.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per Underlying lk|eh bien mon prince —PC-XT+ 09:58, 1 March 2014 (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:TAPPS 5A 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TAPPS 5A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN, for not having enough relevant and valid links. The Banner talk 12:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, it's based on old alignment data, and very few of the links are correct. the new aligned list of schools is now in the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) merge with Template:TAPPS 5A 2014-2016, the new alignments will be in effect very soon, and no reason to hold on to keep the old version in the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Frietjes —PC-XT+ 09:58, 1 March 2014 (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:Http:gwhsaa.com/st-jimmo.com 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 Speedy delete. Test page, deleted under G2. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Http:gwhsaa.com/st-jimmo.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Possibly a mistake in creation as editing tests; if not a mistake the user is trying to use it to link externally against guidelines.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (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:Centred gallery 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) 05:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Centred gallery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This appears entirely useless: <gallery class="center">pictures</gallery> seems to do the same thing. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as redundant to {{gallery}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; since this template was written, both the <gallery>...</gallery> tag and the {{gallery}} template have been improved to handle centring. In the former case, this should be done using <gallery class=center>...</gallery> because the <center>...</center> element is obsolete. In the latter case, the |align=center parameter is provided. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (close?). meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_21&oldid=1151014706"