Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 26

< June 25	June 27 >

June 26, 2006

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Long NPOV

Delete: utterly useless. Jesuschex 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above.--Aldux 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; just use NPOV instead. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete. --JB Adder | Talk 02:26, 3 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Starcraftzerg

Template:Starcraftzerg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I mistakenly forgot to call this "user starcraftzerg". I've remade the userbox template properly. Is there any way to just self-delete pages like this that are created by mistake? I'm new to this. --G Rose 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G7. (It should also be pointed out that no new userboxes should be created in Template space, absent extraordinary conditions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Already done by EWS23). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Drini 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Popes

Template:Popes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Massively oversized & frankly redundant template. If a user needs to find another Pope, both List of Popes (to which every article on Popes already has a link) and Category:Popes already meet this need. If a user needs to find the prior or successor to a given Pope, these are linked with the succession box at the foot of the article. I asked on the Template talk page for a defense of this template, & was answered with "put it up for deletion if your feel you have to; that is your right" which didn't answer my concerns. -- llywrch 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible respectful keep: List of Popes, although elegantly organized and deserving of a featured list, is too long to find quick reference for Popes. Basically, they all need to be visible in the same screenshot, preferably much closer together. It is more than conceivable than someone would want to know a few popes before and after for easy reference, the current pope or the first pope when reading any given Pope article, etc. This is why we have a template for all the U.S. presidents, etc. The size is reasonable and not that big of an issue because it always appears at the bottom of the article. "Redundant"—as construed in this nomination—is not a reason for deletion. We often need to contain the same information in multiple ways for people to find it easier to use. By that standard, we wouldn't even have a list of popes because one could be inferred from the succession boxes, or better yet, from the information in the articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the need to always improve user access to information, this principle should not override the readibility of articles. The size of this template is distracting & makes it harder for me to access the contents for the shorter individual articles. -- llywrch 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible! It's always at the bottom of the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the template's ease of use and for same reasons as Savidan. I would, however, change the template to match the format of Template:Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Targetter 22:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest a change of design per Targetter. —Mi r a 23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Savidan and Targetter. Gizza^Chat ^© 04:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per savidan. Philip Stevens 06:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just too large. We already have List of Popes - and List of Popes (graphical), Category:Popes and succession boxes - for this purpose. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does size realy matter WRT info boxes? They're at the bottom of the page and do not have to be viewed or printed. It's valuable information and is in keeping with other such leaders on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with indefinite ban for author. Not joking: -- Omniplex 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason for proposing a ban? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you are joking about the "indefinite ban". I see no reason not to assume the original author created this in good faith, & with the intent of improving Wikipedia. -- llywrch 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm guessing he's not, but, the user obviously was in good faith. I see no reason for banning, especially infinite! -Dom thedude 0 0 1 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, that made me laugh. -- Ned Scott 01:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The template was originally much smaller (leaving out many of the popes), and has expanded over time; see its history. The template creator has not edited it since making it, and cannot be blamed for its current length. --ais523 12:35, 27 June 2006 (U T C)
Keep. Such templates are common. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Such" templates seldom have quite as many entries as this one. Does the page on every Pope really need a template containing a link to every other Pope? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per savidian, besides this template has a "hide" option. Netscott 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The "hide" option does not work, for example, in the classic skin. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like the skin needs updating. How's the browser? Netscott 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Feel free to update the skin, but the same problem may well exist in other skins too. I'm not sure what your question about the browser is asking about. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm, never updated a skin, maybe you can point me in the right direction? Also the browser comment was relative to the habit of some folks to stick with ancient browsers that don't support "hide" type options. Netscott 14:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to the List of Popes and too long. Imagine a Pope (for example, Benedict XVI), that has a large bulk of various long entries in his article, and to include a long, redundant template that the user can even access the list of Popes by just clicking the Pope link in the succession box to bring him/her to the list. --Kapuso 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm imagining it and enjoying very much. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this is a very informative box for those that want to go between Popes without having to go through the very long List of Popes page -- keeping all of them close together, especially since there are quite a few of them, is a good idea. SVera1NY 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - list could use some structure (maybe not all popes listed for every pope) but the template is useful Gimmetrow 23:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent tool allowing users in one move to jump from article to article about any of the popes. Beats those hideous lists anyday. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. Yes it is a very large template but the coat of arms and the other adornments really beautify the pope articles and the template. Particularly useful. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many reasons. I think this is very useful Royalguard11 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been messing around with the template and here's what I got:

File:Vatican coa.png

Popes of the Roman Catholic Church

Peter • Linus • Anacletus • Clement • Evaristus • Alexander • Sixtus • Telesphorus • Hyginus • Pius • Anicetus • Soter • Eleuterus • Victor • Zephyrinus • Callixtus • Urban • Pontian • Anterus • Fabian • Cornelius • Lucius • Stephen • Dionysius • Felix • Eutychian • Caius • Marcellinus • Marcellus • Eusebius • Miltiades • Silvester • Mark • Julius • Liberius • Damasus • Siricius • Anastasius • Innocent • Zosimus • Boniface • Celestine • Leo • Hilarius • Simplicius • Gelasius • Symmachus • Hormisdas • John • Agapetus • Silverius • Vigilius • Pelagius • Benedict • Gregory • Sabinian • Adeodatus • Honorius • Severinus • Theodore • Martin • Eugene • Vitalian • Donus • Agatho • Conon • Sergius • Sisinnius • Constantine • Zachary • Paul • Adrian • Paschal • Valentine • Nicholas • Marinus • Formosus • Romanus • Lando • John Paul

Maybe the list could be alphabatized? I'm just too tired to do it right now (3:15 AM EST) on my end... what does everyone think? 162.84.247.144 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This level of discussion about changing the template might be better on the template talk page than TfD. Personally, I think it is important to have this list organized by time period. Gimmetrow 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with Gimmetrow about where a discussion about changing the template should normally go, it seems in this case to be useful here, because one of the major arguments against the current template is its size. The new proposed template has potential. I'd opt for putting in century markers to help navigate it, then, if possible, vote to keep the modified one. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a proposal on the template talk page for a while without comment. There is no way to organize it by century if all the "Pope John"s are compressed to one "Pope John", though navigation in this way is legit and could be kept in addition. It would be possible to group by time period - the template displaying by name only the popes of the same period as the article. It would be easy enough to code with a few templates, and might even be possible with show/hide if the skins issues were addressed. Here is a mock-up. Gimmetrow 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on some changes to the general NavBox code that will allow for inline NavBox texts. This will allow NavBoxes like this to be much smaller. Basically I envision a NavBox that has every century listed; clicking on a century expands the list of popes to include those from that century only. Gimmetrow 20:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too big to be useful. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s useful. It’s more informative and easier to use than a succession box. Coming at the bottom, its size doesn’t get in the way of anything—scrolling past it to get at categories is no big deal. Actually I would like to see more article series use templates like this one. —Ian Spackman 21:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is useful.--Aldux 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about dividing the template in two or three sections. The last section would always be visible while the earlier one or two would have a "show" link? --Oldak Quill 16:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - either as it is in respect to other world leaders or as suggested in the comment immediately above divided by Millennia or other historical boundaries. --Walter Görlitz 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply because it fails as a nav template. This does not aid in navigation in any way, and does not help the reader. Huge blocks of links don't really.. help... anything... This is not what a nav template is for, this is what a category is for. Category navigation in this case is soooo much easier in finding a pope article. I thought of a pope, tried to find it via the nav template, took forever. This isn't about the topic being popes or anything like that, it's about any nav template that has.. this method.. this huge block of links... it fails as a nav template, it does not make navigation easier. It's like, lets list every possible wikipedia article link on every wikipedia article. Why is that a bad idea? The same reason why this template is a bad idea. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm more of the argument that this template be change to reflect periods of papal history, say, by centuries, or something like that. I've come across a couple of large templates like this before, and my suggestion has been the same: break the template up into logical pieces, a la the template used on the Chronicles of Narnia articles. However, if the need for deletion is justifiable enough, then I would reluctantly support it. --JB Adder | Talk 02:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This template is of great utility. It greatly facilitates browsing through Pope articles without having to use the huge list of popes page.--Antonio Basto 13:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It puts the "huge list of popes" on every pope page. This is a nightmare for "what links here" and "related changes", in exactly the same way as Template:Current UK MP - see above. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful. No division into blocks.--Panairjdde 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete without prejudice to recreation at a reasonable size, per the anon suggestion above. A compromise, along the lines of {{otherarticles}} might have this link to a page specially designed, which would be the list of names without breaks, but without tinting and at standard size. Septentrionalis 14:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: It is much easier to modify an existing template than to recreate it from scratch. Note that I am working on the size of the navbox. The sample above (by anon 162) is an entirely different way of organizing a navbox, and could not replace the function of this one. Gimmetrow 14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would also keep the design proposed on Template talk:Popes Septentrionalis 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it useful for navigation. SCHZMO ✍ 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. useful for navigation.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I was using this template, and finding it incredibly useful, when I noticed the discussion for deletion bit. Fork me 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I was just using this template to find a pope, and I am sure it's the easiest way to navigate between popes. I was very surprised to see it's been nominated for deletion. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 22:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this more useful for navigation than the existing Category:Popes? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all it saves you a click, for example if I want to navigate from Pope John Paul I to Pope Benedict XV I can do it with one single click, whereas I would have to click once more in the category view. Secondly and more importantly, it's sorted by time of reign and not by name. In the category view, it's impossible to understand Pope Benedict XVI was right after Pope John Paul II. The page list of popes takes ages to load and ages to scroll down. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful. I found it time-saving and easy to navigate. -ScotchMB 11:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If others find it useful, it seems wrong to delete.--Brownlee 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Divide into (perhaps) four smaller templates, for example, in 500-year periods. Each pope article could have the smaller template (appropriate for that pope) at the bottom. Each of the smaller templates would link to each of the other three and to the larger one, the way this one does. AnnH ♫ 15:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I dislike the design of that Nobel Laureate template. The links go to other templates and off the original article page. This treats the template page as if it were an article. The template I am working on would keep the entire list together, with content that can be switched on and off. Gimmetrow 17:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I would like to keep the template as seen above. It is much easier to navigate. Thanks to whoever cleaned it up.--Chili14 Talk Contribs 19:23, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisputedMC

Delete, as per nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 05:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: duplicates other templates.--Brownlee 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary; there are other templates that list the same information. Cowman109^Talk 22:54, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was kept -- Drini 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ActiveDiscussMC

Keep; I've used it on occasion (and then taken it down.) Useful to put on talk pages. Sdedeo (tips) 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Also unattractive. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 05:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I can see that it might be useful; some re-design might help though. Impressed by Domthedude's signature.--Brownlee 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; it's useful, just needs to be reworded a bit (I'll get right on that if it's kept). Cowman109^Talk 22:55, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zimbabwe infobox

Delete per nom. Picaroon9288 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 05:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Nightst a llion (?) 20:25, 1 July 2006 (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 page.

Did you forget to delete it? ⌠Yellow up⌡ 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukrsftr

Template:Ukrsftr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was used on UK railway stations - A but on no other letters of the alphabet in that series of list articles. It appears to have been used to close a table, add another template, and enter a category. In fact the other pages in the series link directly to that other template, and are individually added to their categories. So I've fixed the "A" article's table, directly linked to the other template, and fixed its category membership. That means that this template is now not used by any page, and is unlikely to ever be useful. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per kierant--Brownlee 12:07, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trans-Canada

Replaced by succession boxes. --SPUI (T - C) 15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a fast navigation template, succession boxes only allow secvential navigation, and there is no fast link between the various branches (1<->16). - Qyd^(talk)15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you click to the category and then to another one. That's rather quick. --SPUI (T - C) 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Succession boxes may work for the articles on each provincial stretch of the highway, they do not work for the main articles. In this case, the template is a much cleaner, and significantly more useful means of presenting the information. Resolute 03:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a single-use template, which should be substed - and rewritten as text. --SPUI (T - C) 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Qyd. --Usgnus 04:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful--Brownlee 12:06, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --William Allen Simpson 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley templates

[[Template::)]]
[[Template::-)]]

This is a strange one. These templates appear on Special:Allpages, yet as far as I can tell cannot be viewed in any way (they cannot be reached via Go or Search, URL entry (quoted or unquoted), wikilink, transclusion, Special:Movepage can't affect them, some admin should probably check whether they're deletable). As such, I have had no chance to place a TfD notice on the templates or discover whether they are used or who the contributors are. These should probably be deleted per WP:IAR as being completely impossible to use (unless I'm missing something); does anyone know how they were created in the first place? I've even had to avoid the TfD templates for this nomination because the templates' names break them. ais523 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the same apply to [[Template::_AFL_Arenas]] ? Gimmetrow 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the delete tools seem to work on these, at least with all the interesting variations I've tried. May take a dev to kill these. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do they actually do anything? Do they even exist? Fr e ddie _Message? 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such templates on allpages; I do, however, see {{(:}} and {{):}}, which could probably be deleted (separately) for lack of use. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: comes just after 9 in ASCIIbetical order, which is the way that Special:Allpages sorts. If you filter on namespace (to Template:) you can see them just after the templates starting with 9. And Gimmetrow, well noticed for [[Template::_AFL_Arenas]]!. --ais523 08:13, 30 June 2006 (U T C)

Ah, you're right. Same goes for the article named :CueCat in the main namespace. And, while I'm at it, there is (was?) an image named :AcousticGuitar.jpg, which I can't touch. Someone needs to take a close look at this issue. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that {{(:}} and {{):}} were recently created, function, and are editable. Also note that :CueCat may be inaccessible, but in most circumstances I tried, accessing it loads CueCat (no colon). Gimmetrow 15:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more similarly problematic entity; if you check the start of Special:Listusers, you'll discover a user with a zero-length username (userpage is[[User:]], a redlink). As usernames can't be deleted anyway, though, this is probably not a problem. --ais523 16:27, 3 July 2006 (U T C) 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if possible These are very interesting templates. Being virtually inaccesible, they may be difficult to delete. If need so, the webmaster may need to get rid of them manually. But either way, smileys do not have a place, IMO, in Wikipedia's template space, simply because it'll require more space to type the template name than to type the actual smiley. --JB Adder | Talk 02:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the fuss. What harm are they doing?--Brownlee 12:05, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Drini 21:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:--

Template:-- (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Probably not useful (although it's designed to be substed). I've substed all remaining uses of it already. It was in a TfD that voted orphan-delete (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_20), but it's not obvious whether it was included in that TfD's decision or not. ais523 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst current uses, but do not delete so that it can still be used as a typing tool. Yes, I know that there's a clickable em-dash in the big character box, but {{--}} is easier for some people to type. --M @r ē ino 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (well, I created it). Um, what's not useful about being able to create em-dashes with the most likely combination: -- surrounded with template marks? Much better than people having to remember &emdash; (is that even right?) {{--}} is definitely faster to type in a hurry than having to stop typing, try and find the right link to click, click, then get back to typing. Perhaps making this template widely known would reduce the instances of people typing raw -- in their page text? Stevage 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The clickable mdashes aren't Lynx-friendly. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination The comments given are sufficient to convince me that this template is useful after all, and imply that it ought not to be included in the result of the previous TfD. Of course, the template should still be substed on sight, due to the way it works. --ais523 12:16, 27 June 2006 (U T C)
Delete. Not useful indeed! --Kapuso 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amusingly, three of the comments above (including one of mine) have -- in them as a sig separator. --ais523 08:12, 28 June 2006 (U T C)
Delete The way to do this is —, or (if possible) by clicking on the mdash in the insert list below your edit screen. Septentrionalis 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get you. Is the way to do infoboxes to type them by hand? This is a simple, useful, memorable mnemonic that takes no space and has no performance side effects, and might lead to a slight reduction in raw --'s instead of —'s. And fwiw, HTML code is just as deprecated as using templates to correctly represent the symbol in unicode.

Keep Easier to remember than — -Brownlee 12:02, 6 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:$

Template:$ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only used on two pages, name is not indicative of what it does. I would suggest renaming if this was used on many pages, but as it is I think subst and delete would work better. ais523 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You should note that I created this Template for use on Comparison of BSD operating systems. It was named as it was so that an editor could just write {{$}}12.95, for example, and it would colorize the table entry accordingly (to differentiate between free and non-free). (By the way, thank you for informing me of this debate on my talk page.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete restricted, and essentially obsolete, template.Something like this will essentially cause instruction drift. --JB Adder | Talk 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's "instruction drift"? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom--Brownlee 12:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. --Cyde↔Weys 20:21, 6 July 2006 (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 page.