Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 22

< June 21	June 23 >

June 22 edit

Template:Source list 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As a matter of principle, we should not be creating 'secret' source lists. I really cannot see how much was gained by having this done other than making it more difficult for new editors to learn that they need to find this template and then Template:Source list/Smith1986 to figure out what's going on. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it could be very useful if it were better known. I have not tried it but from reading the documentation it looks like it would solve a problem in article maintenance, ie finding ref definitions in big articles which are undergoing major edits. The text is no more hidden than the text in an infobox.Dankarl (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this template to make using and maintaining frequently cited references a bit easier. With this template it is possible to add such a ref by just typing its shorthand. For instance, 'Smith1986' refers to a well known paper of Smith et al. published in Science in 1986. It reports on all imaging done by Voyager 2 at Uranus. The paper can potentially be used in tens of articles. I also dispute that there is any secret source list. A list of all transcluded templates appears at the bottom of the page in the editing mode. There is also a special category, which contains all subpage references. Ruslik_Zero 15:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This template has been on my radar for a while. The documentation is a bit lacking, but the template operates with list-defined references in two modes:

The template can define the reference in the list using |namex= instead of <ref name=name> and |refx= with the citation. For example:

Standard

{{reflist|refs=
<ref name=Miner2007>{{cite book|title=Planetary Ring Systems|year=2007|author= Miner, Ellis D., Wessen, Randii R., Cuzzi, Jeffrey N. |publisher= Springer Praxis Books |chapter=The discovery of the Neptune ring system| isbn=978-0-387-34177-4}}</ref>
}}

Source list

{{reflist|refs=
{{Source list
|name1=Miner2007
|ref1={{cite book|title=Planetary Ring Systems|year=2007|author= Miner, Ellis D., Wessen, Randii R., Cuzzi, Jeffrey N. |publisher= Springer Praxis Books |chapter=The discovery of the Neptune ring system| isbn=978-0-387-34177-4}}
}}

If only |namex= is defined, then the template calls the named ref from a template subpage of the same name:

Source list

{{reflist|refs=
{{Source list
|name1=Smith1989
}}

Will call the reference from Template:Source list/Smith1989.

This can also be called as:

{{reflist|refs=
<ref name=Smith1989>{{Source list/Smith1989}}</ref>
}}

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template just does not provide any real savings and adds a layer of complexity to an already complex system. There is also an issue of scalability— as more citations are added, schemes will have to be developed to keep citation names from colliding. The use of hard-coded citation templates is in practice elsewhere, so there is precedent— whether or not this is a good practice is beyond the scope of this discussion. There is no provision for page numbers; thus {{rp}} must be used to provide in-text page numbers (which is contentious) or separate citations must be coded for every page number. The citations can be moved to subpages of another template, perhaps Astrosource. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hard coded citation templates are used because nothing else is possible. This is hardly a precedent. Citation templates generally do not have any provision for page numbers. So, this is not a problem of 'Source list'. And the level of complexity that is added by 'Source list' is minimal. Ruslik_Zero 05:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-coded citation templates have been in use for quite some time and some support a page number parameter; see Category:Medieval studies source templates for examples. Template:Source list/Smith1989 uses {{cite journal}} which does support page numbers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. There is no page numbers in citation templates. Ruslik_Zero 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated this twice, so I probably cannot convince you otherwise. Read the documentation for {{cite journal}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite book}} has it, even {{cite news}} for newspaper pages and {{cite web}} for webpages. The fact that some of these templates have it and some don't even have that functionality is precisely why there's even a CSD for hardcoded templates. If someone adds a new functionality to the main templates (or god forbid, changes something) all these hard-coded templates and templates calling other hard-coded templates all break. That headache to save some editor who have already memorized what obscure template is for what random source from having to copy-and-paste the actual citation onto the article is just not a good balance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what are talking about. However, you are not a right person to judge what headaches others have or what templates content contributors should use. Ruslik_Zero 09:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Any particular reason you have that view?~~ I will couch my statement with in my opinion though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. Whatever your opinion, it's your opinion and that's not relevant. Will you at least acknowledge that there are page numbers in citation templates? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you saying that the |page= and |pages= paramaters that exist in {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} don't exist?

Because it sure looks like they do to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was related to the above claim that "There is no provision for page numbers; thus {{rp}} must be used to provide in-text page numbers (which is contentious) or separate citations must be coded for every page number." There is no way a page number can be provided for each citation, only general page numbers with |page(s)= parameter. This is no a problem of Source list template. Ruslik_Zero 07:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a page number can't be provided for each citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, it is far more useful to have a well known citation repeated on a billion pages than to have it hidden in a template subpage. If Smith1986 is so well cited, then it should be physically present in all the articles that need it, so the end-user (ie, reader) can easily access it and modify it if necessary. This extra layer of complexity overall harms the ultimate quality of articles by preventing everyday readers from contributing. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
End-user (ie, reader) does not need to modify a well know citation. Ruslik_Zero 07:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to Dankarl's opinion I think this would be very problematic if well known. There would be subpages for every reference and it would become a nightmare managing them. When used on only a single article, as in the case of Arlot2008, or two (Burns2001) articles, it adds a completely unnecessary layer of complexity. It makes far more sense to cite as required using other widely known and used citation templates. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I have no problem with creating a holding pen for a list of references to be used in the article, but this is not a good idea. The major problem is that we are going to fill up template space with a bunch of citations with inevitable namespace clashes. I don't particularly like {{cite doi}} or {{cite pmid}} either (see this), but at least there the DOI or PMID is unique. Plastikspork (talk) 14:24, 7 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:Natasha Obama 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 per G2 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Natasha Obama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template at all. Obviously created by an inexperienced user —Chris!_c/t 21:11, 22 June 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:Todor Hristov Vassilev 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 Moved to AFD. This is obviously an article, so I've moved it to the proper namespace and put it to AFD so that a clear consensus can be established for keeping or deleting it. (Prior deletions were prod/speedy.) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todor Vassilev for the new discussion. RL0919 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todor Hristov Vassilev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a template, but a copy of an article. It is not used anywhere. The article has been deleted three times. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:16, 22 June 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:Immortal Technique 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) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Immortal Technique (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template, too few links. Karppinen (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not justify a navbox. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete: Add links to the See Also section of each article, except the main article. Fleet Command (talk) 16:38, 1 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:Asher Roth 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) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asher Roth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template, too few links. Karppinen (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not justify a navbox. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be replaced with a compact sidebar navbox is necessary. The trouble is, I don't think it's necessary. Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 1 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:Prince Ea 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) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prince Ea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template, too few links. Karppinen (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a navbox, although with a small difference: It is not a navbox! Created nearly two month ago, so we can assume it may not improve. Fleet Command (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not justify a navbox. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:24, 1 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:Fetch 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 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overly complex template used on only 3 articles with 19 links to those 3 articles. The series has been cancelled so expansion is unlikely. AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The show has not nessasarily been canceled, as there is no official word on the cancellation. If the show is canceled, I believe that removing the template is the right action. However, if the template is deleted we cannot recover it, so my proposition is to leave the template until official word is given that Fetch is canceled. Hidividedby5 (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should speak to Checker Fred. He seems convinced that the show has definitely been cancelled.[1][2] All indications are that it definitely has been cancelled. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The creation of this template is for easy maintaining of its content. It is mainly easeier to acess the pages and you don't have to hit the back space to find the pages you need, it will save time. Also, let just say, FETCH does make a comeback like ZOOM did, we can just keep adding in the season later on. It might come back. Times are tough right now. So I say it is a keep.Checker Fred (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Fetch does return and expands beyond what it is now, then a template might be appropriate then but it isn't needed for only 3 articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that this keep vote was cast by a now blocked sockpuppet. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not our coverage expands or the show continues, navboxes are for aiding readers who have difficulty finding their way around large numbers of existing articles. They are not supposed to be boilerplate for any old subject. This is presently nothing more than a lavender-tinged distraction. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I think as well. Some people do have tough times to get to the articles. It will just make it easier for people.Checker Fred (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erm, no, my comment means the opposite to yours. If there are only three article then a navigation box is not needed, and simply clutters up the few articles on which it is used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - I still say keep. There are other templetes that have 3 articles linked to them. I know like iCarly and drake and josh tv shows have only 3 articles linked to them. Infact of all dan's shows do.Checker Fred (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFF. {{ICarly}} links to thirteen articles and {{Drake & Josh}} links to ten so they don't support you anyway. In fact, no Dan Scheider shows do. even {{Kenan & Kel}} links to four articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, none of the keep !votes have addressed the concern that THIS NAVBOX ONLY HAS 3 ARTICLES. No amount of debate about whether this series will continue is going to change that. Quicklinking to the anchor saves the reader 1 click at the table of contents and no page-loading time since section-heading anchors don't need loading. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundant: main article and two articles linking it in the lead. jonkerz ♠ 23:29, 5 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:Tramlink routes 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) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tramlink routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates the content of the more recent and superior template Template:Tramlink by appearing next to it on every Tramlink page WatcherZero (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aren't both these, and the main article, horribly generically named, showing an extreme London bias? "tramlink/tram-link/tram link" is a pretty common word in places with trams. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a brand name, it was originally 'Croydon Tramlink' but they dropped the Croydon bit, the articles followed suite. WatcherZero (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it occupies a generic word, which I think is always a bad idea. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regardless of the generic-ness of the template name, Template:Tramlink is superior in every way with no cost to readability. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:31, 1 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:Tyler James 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) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tyler James (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates to one album and single —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not justify a navbox. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it does not justify a navbox for so small articles. You can't miss those links in the article. Why would you need a navbox? Fleet Command (talk) 16:32, 1 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:GEon 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) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No transclusions. Makes a simple pipelink that can easily be typed out. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If not used, so why keep them? Fleet Command (talk) 16:30, 1 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:-• 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) 23:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-• (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary hack used to present a bullet without the associated semantic markup (a list), seemingly for personal aesthetics. Majority of uses are on video game chronology articles where they could readily be replaced with either normal wikibullets or simple line breaks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replace with a normal bullet. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normal bullets become a problem at small font-sizes, at least in Firefox and IE8. See User:SharkD/Sandbox/1. The spacing between lines is greater when not using the template, which is an issue in already crowded tables, and the bullets don't change size along with the font. SharkD Talk 04:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists can be have their styles overridden if that's necessary. Replacing them with hacks involving line breaks and bullet points shouldn't be necessary. Indeed, most of the uses of this template could be replaced with simple line breaks (omitting the bullet entirely) with no loss of clarity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lists can be have their styles overridden if that's necessary." Please indicate how if this is the case. There's no way to confirm whether you're right without an example. I highly doubt there's a solution that works across different browsers. Also, I disagree that replacing the bullets with line breaks would not detriment the article. List-type information belongs in lists. SharkD Talk 10:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the actual use case here? From what I see in the chronology articles, it's being used for nothing more than arbitrary styling on <br />-separated lists, in table cells no less. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you could want to know that hasn't already been covered in previous replies. Could you explain what it is you mean? SharkD Talk 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, for what purpose is this template useful which isn't covered by the standard bullet-list feature of wikicode? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The font issues. Further, normal wiki list syntax doesn't work inside tables. See User:SharkD/Sandbox/5. SharkD Talk 18:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially fixed by a carriage return. Check your sandbox now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good solution for large tables because it makes them much less manageable. I don't see how you could call such a change "trivial", and I doubt the article content would survive long as a result. SharkD Talk 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So use a line break.(<br />) It seems to work fine in the example I gave. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Test cases. I don't see what's so unmaintainable about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Nominator reason is case of I Don't Like It. I refrain to accept such reasoning. The template is in wide use and is not in violation of any policy. Why should break-and-repair something that needs not be disturbed? Fleet Command (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overturning my opinion to delete after conversation with AussieLegend. Fleet Command (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in "wide use": it's in use on a handful of video game articles, exclusively in cases where its replacement with either proerly lists or simple line breaks would have no detrimental effect (and in the case of proper lists would increase semantic value). If you want a concrete guideline that this isn't compatible with, try MOS:ICONDECORATION, because it's just a pointless bullet icon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is extensively used in a few articles. Fleet Command (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to see what effect this template has, I pasted a copy of the table from Chronology of tactical role-playing games: 2005 to 2009#List into my user space. The results are:
- With template
- Without template - {{-•}} has been replaced with a standard line break (<br />) and {{••}} has been removed entirely.

I just don't see the benefit when a line break is a single click. The non-templated version was a half a page shorter. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now YOU are talking. Overturning my opinion to Delete. I like a man of action. Fleet Command (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Replacing the bullets with line breaks makes it hard to identify what is a natural line break due to the text wrapping at some point, and what is due to the BR tag. For instance, in the case of Disgaea: Afternoon of Darknessare, are Nippon Ichi and Atlus two separate companies, or a single company with a long name? It also turns structured data into unstructured data. What would your modified version look like if it used normal bulletted lists instead of line breaks?
Further, normal wiki syntax doesn't work inside table cells. If you look at User:SharkD/Sandbox/5 you can see the wiki markup is replaced with asterixes. SharkD Talk 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the names, they seem to be separate and a quick mouseover confirms it. What my modified version would look like in other situations is irrelevant as the template is only used in a few tables in a few articles and they look fine without the additional complexity of the templates. The in-use table that I modified is about a half-page shorter when printed and the table is reduced in size by 8kB, which is a significant improvement when the total table size was about 69kB before I started. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there doesn't seem to be any consensus as of yet whether to replace it with wiki lists or line breaks. SharkD Talk 19:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus here isn't really necessary but a line break seems to work fine in the example I gave. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be consensus that either are preferable to using this template, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 8 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:!: 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As it admits, it simply provides a nowiki'd colon mark. Only 5 mainspace transclusions (and a bunch of template transclusions for templates that are on TfD) which can easily be subst'd. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's part of a series of formatting templates and I'm sure it has its various uses. There's a reason it does what it does and there's no real reason to get rid of it. -- œ ^™ 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With this and this edit, the uses should be eliminated from Template:Cquote and Template:Globalize and once the job queue catches up, it will be thus be eliminated from all the templates and thus all the articles. Formatting templates are fine. Formatting templates so that editors can put their own personal touches on documentation pages are useless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In the same way that we have {{'}}, {{!}}, ... This one provides a way to get the literal character, although the need for it is far less common that the prior two. I agree that it shouldn't be used for flourishes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, : works, no? I'm not sure that it's desirable to have digraphs for everything, especially where nobody seems to be using it except its original author anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not when attempting to add a trailing colon to a definition list, no. SharkD Talk 05:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't see the character literals in your post. : seems even more cumbersome to remember... SharkD Talk 05:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I noted, the job queue caught up and (with a few more similar removals) eliminated this template's usage from all of articlespace. The only remaining uses are basically talk pages where this author uses his template as opposed to just making a colon and a return line. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked your changes and in most cases removing the colon wasn't an issue. But in this case the formatting of the article was broken afterward. Please be more careful. I agree, though, that in most cases where you removed the template it never served a critical role. SharkD Talk 10:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It does what it advertises, and does in fact overcome a wiki syntax limitation. SharkD Talk 05:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a way to introduce a special character into normal usage, even if it isn't used in articlespace, that shouldn't be a concern, since you still could need to write it in other spaces, like talk space. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:56, 7 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:Wiktionarytmp 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) 04:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding:

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

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

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

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

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

No transclusions, why do we care that Wiktionary/other has this template again? Axem Titanium (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure why they're needed, but I think it has something to do with Template:Interwikitmp-grp. I'd really like to hear from their creator.. -- œ^™ 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if the creator was notified? I see loads of TFD notices on his talk page, but not these specific templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - It appears that I tried to notify the creator, but my Twinkle seems to hate me and instead of adding a new section for each TfD, it just replaced the previous one. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlike the interwiki linked articles, templates often have completely different purposes across different projects, see for example meta's For template and our For template. The creator, a member of the template sharing project, was known to blindly copy templates across the English Wikimedia projects that quite often had to be deleted. And even if it's decided to link templates from sister projects, we should rather use the common templates for this (like {{Wiktionary}}, {{Commons}} and so on). --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:02, 23 June 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:Barbel class submarine 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) 04:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barbel class submarine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Really only has 4 articles linked (Barbel class submarine, USS Barbel (SS-580), USS Blueback (SS-581), USS Bonefish (SS-582)), all the others are more ancillarily related. They could be better linked through "See also", rather than a navbox. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this type of template is standard procedure for ship classes within the remit of WP:SHIPS. See also sections are discouraged when navigation boxes such as this one are present (per WP:SEEALSO). -MBK₀₀₄ 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll trust the nominator that templates like this can get crufty in other contexts, but I've seen nothing but positive reactions to templates like this from editors of ship articles, and as MBK's link points out, the template is useful for adding context to what would otherwise be context-less "See also" links. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd rather have a navbox than a See also list, which, IMO, generally don't look good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Such templates are a much better way to navigate between ships in the same class. This template only has a few ships, others have hundreds such as {{Empire C ships}}. Are we really saying that a bulleted "See also" list of 184 ships is better than a discrete template at the bottom of an article? Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 23 June 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:MainBold 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a rule, category pages should never get so messy as to need a template so main articles "don't get lost in the background clutter". On a more general level, {{Main}} already exists and the need for a bold version is small and could theoretically be coded into that template without the need for this one. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Axem Titanium (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree that this template is only for "messy" category pages. I think it's good if a user wants to distinguish the main article in any situation, messy category page or not, it's a useful template to have, and until someone DOES code bolding into {{main}} this template still serves a useful purpose. Also per FrankB's lenghty arguments from the first deletion discussion where it was kept. -- œ ^™ 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be generally discouraged and if desired can be replaced by a bolded {{dablink}}, or a simple {{ambox}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not used at all. Wikitools show no instance of transclusion. Fleet Command (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt there is any compelling need to bold this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:19, 10 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:Also starring 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Also starring (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used at List of Charmed characters in three places, two of which are commented out. The last usage ([[3]]) isn't even using this. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused overly complicated template. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it serves a useful purpose in even just one article then that should be reason enough to keep it. -- œ ^™ 20:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It's a one-off template substitution which has never been more broadly adopted. That it has any present transclusions at all is largely due to apathy in maintaining that one article. One-off hacks like this are not beneficial to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a need for it, it can be merged with the standard episode list template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one-off templates are best directly substituted into the article and deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 06:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as above. see teh clues. Jack Merridew 00:31, 8 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:Strategy Think Tank Essay 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) 04:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strategy Think Tank Essay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not really useful, as it is only a slight variation on {{essay}} and is not transcluded somewhere. monosock 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also raises some questionable ownership issues. ~~Redirect to {{essay}}.~~ If there are no present transclusions then it's unlikely to be needed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a front for soapboxing, back if and when it was used. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless WikiProject Military History speaks up and has a reason for wanting to keep this around. -- œ ^™ 20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per OE. Imzadi 1979 → 06:02, 26 June 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.