Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 11 June 13 >

June 12

edit

Template:Yakuza 3 Completion

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) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yakuza 3 Completion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One: Content being used as a template when it has only one possible use. Two: Would say this is in violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. So I'm arguing for complete deletion without substing, due to the latter reason. Izno (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (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:Commander in Chief (video game) series

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) 03:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commander in Chief (video game) series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only two actual entries. Izno (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2012 (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:Largest mosques in the world

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) 02:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest mosques in the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used in only one article, Mosque. It could easily be replace by a link to List of large mosques. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (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:Fb r width X

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) 03:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb r width 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 17 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 18 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 19 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 23 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fb r width 24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged these into template:fb r width, so they are now all obsolete. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (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:Lne

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) 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lne/begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lne/end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2012 (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:KL KLIAT Line ID

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) 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KL KLIAT Line ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:KL KLIAX Line ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2012 (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:Ports

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 any desired features to Template:Portal (with discussion regarding such taking place on the talk page for said template or any other applicable areas). JPG-GR (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Basically a recreation of Template:Satop by same author (User:Buaidh) that was deleted before - (see:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Template:Satop). Quote original nomination = "Part of a series of templates by the same author which together are almost entirely redundant to {{portal}} (which supports the same syntax and essentially the same styling) and whose additional features are occasionally undesirable". Moxy (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Please keep this template. It is used by a number of users. Template:Ports compliments Template:Portal and provides several additional options. As the documentation states: "Template:Ports should be used in lieu of Template:Portal for portal icons with diverse aspect ratios, evenly spaced portal links, more than 18 portal links, complex portal boxes, and links to proposed portals." Template:Ports is constructed very differently than Template:Portal, but is deliberately designed to look very much like the latter for compatibility. If Template:Ports has features that are deemed counterproductive, I will gladly remove or modify them. (The capacity for 60 portal links may be excessive. I used this number in case anyone wanted to link the portals for all 50 United States and the U.S. territories.) I will be happy to modify the format of this template as this forum may advise. I think it would be very silly to delete this useful template. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement with {{portal}} (note that it isn't a recreation of satop, since satop used this template). Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is perfectly useful in articles.Greg Heffley 19:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as an unnecessary duplicate of {{portal}}. Where it isn't a duplicate actual problems should be fixed in {{portal}}, though I can't see ever a need to add 60 portals to an article (even 18 seems excessive); the graphical options are unnecessary and run contrary to the guidelines on use of colour and formatting.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessarily redundant template. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnBlackburne. --Izno (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with Imzadi 1979 --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Comment – This template provides page layout options that the standard portal template does not. For example, in articles with images that extend into their See also sections, this template is useful to move the portal links to the left, rather than having them overextend on the right underneath images, which is sloppy in appearance. The deletion of this template would simply reduce page layout options, whereas retaining it serves to increase layout options. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and to give a that little increment in consistency throughout WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous nominations were leading up to this. This fork should never have been created: the features that it purports to introduce should have been discussed for inclusion into {{portal}} rather than unilaterally rolled out across whole series of articles, most of which are served perfectly well by that template as-is. Northamerica1000's comment appears to miss that {{portal}} has supported left-floating, for instance, since before this template existed. "Having options" is not an end to itself, and conformity makes for both easier editing (as editors do not have to choose between multiple nearly-identical templates to do the same job) and a better reading experience (as fewer templates makes testing significantly easier, a matter which has come to the forefront since the upturn in mobile browser use has highlighted the inadequacies of our current templates, and a more uniform and consistent layout). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, I concur with Thumperward. This template started as a test bed for possible improvements to Template:Portal. It became an independent software fork when it became apparent to me that these improvements would most likely turn Template:Portal into a hapless Swiss Army knife. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of letting the infamous Portal:Satop (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Template:Satop) invoke Template:Ports instead of Template:Portal which would have served just as well. This unjustly fouled Template:Ports with the stench of Template:Satop.
I feel that Template:Ports deserves to stand on its own despite the just concerns of Thumperward. I have offered to reformat this template. If a consensus wishes to delete this template, I feel that at least two functions of this template should first be added to Template:Portal:
  1. The option to evenly space links, and
  2. The option to hide redlinks.
This will, of course, complicate Template:Portal, perhaps making it harder to use. Since Template:Portal is invoked on more than 4,000,000 pages, we should seriously consider whether we wish to burden it with any more functions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding redlinks doesn't seem worth the effort: we should flag errors so that they can be fixed. And "evenly spacing links" is only a problem if the images used have non-standard heights: that, too, is best addressed directly, by fixing the images. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geographic portals most commonly use flags for portal icons. Flags seldom have the 8:7 aspect ratio used by Template:Portal (the flags of the UK and most of the Commonwealth have aspect ratios of 2:1) and are not amenable to editing to a different aspect ratio. The Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes both look horrid either stretched or trimmed to an 8:7 aspect ratio. Template:Ports accommodates images that cannot be neatly stretched or trimmed. (Please see Template:Ports#Comparison with Template:Portal.) This function would be rather easy to add to Template:Portal. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to impose any notion of what Wikipedia should on anyone. I'm more than happy to work with anyone interested in these templates. Yours aye,  Buaidh 
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:Geoscheme

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) 03:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

currently unused, after I rewrote the article lead. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2012 (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:Cto

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) 06:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per Template:PBox, &c. (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Template:Pbox) another attempt to complexify and confuse inter-article links, making adding and adjusting such an exercise in arcane template syntax JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still making these templates? Now we have Template:Tol that you plan to spam all over because this one looks like it will be deleted? Can we get an admin involved!Moxy (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my preceding comment. I have no plans to deploy Template:Tol unless this forum approves such. Template:Tol and its documentation took me all of two minutes to create. I don't know how I can be more cooperative. Yours aye,  Buaidh  13:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Buaidh and Greg.LanceBarber (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If the consensus decision is either to replace Template:Cto with Template:Tol or to keep both templates, I will personally replace all invocations of Template:Cto with Template:Tol. I'm convinced by this discussion that Template:Tol is the better solution. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stricken your second 'replace' !vote as you had already !voted 'keep', on the assumption that that was your preference, unless you yourself want to clarify which it should be.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for the confusion, but I really am convinced by this discussion that a topic overview link list is far preferable to a linkbox. Template:Cto is only a few days old and probably would have evolved into something like Template:Tol if given the chance. I've spent a few more minutes cleaning up Template:Tol and its documentation.
I recommend that Template:Tol replace Template:Cto, and I agree to do the replacement if we have a consensus. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following manual code will replace most functions of Template:Tol:
*Topic overview:
**{{ll|Topic}}
**{{ll|Outline of Topic}}
**{{ll|Index of Topic-related articles}}
**{{ll|Bibliography of Topic}}
**{{ll|Book:Topic}}
If you feel this manual code is simpler than {{tol}}, then there is certainly no need for Template:Tol. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:18, 23 June 2012 (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:Barako Bull Energy Boosters current roster

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) 03:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barako Bull Energy Boosters current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barako Bull Energy Boosters went defunct in 2011 so a current roster navbox is no longer useful. Jenks24 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2012 (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/2012_June_12&oldid=1138696202"