Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 3
October 3
[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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:FR-in-universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Is redundant to {{In-universe/Dungeons & Dragons}}, which is about five times more in use. Both {{FR-in-universe}} and {{In-universe/Dungeons & Dragons}} place articles into Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction, but {{In-universe/Dungeons & Dragons}} has the additional clarity because of the similarity in names of template and category. Basically a case of overtemplating. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect I think all the oldstyle "x-in-universe" templates are redirected to the newstyle "in-universe/x" templates. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- They are. But this is the only case of two templates adding to the same category, and appearent redundancy. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok I redirected it, and that means SB will probably replace most of the redirects anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:UK census ethnic groups. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. As stated in nom, this is redundant to {{UK census ethnic groups}}, which is more comprehensive and more widely used. Replace this template with the other one in the two articles where it is used, and delete it along with the unused redirect from {{White people in the UK}}. --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete per potential confusion with {{lead section}}, and due to the fact that the 5 transclusions were not using any of the superscript/subscript options, but were simply producing Pb, as a plain wikilink. In cases that there were superscripts/subscripts, they were being added by hand, without use of the template's functionality. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Lead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I know I'm partially bringing up WP:OTHERSTUFF, but keep in mind that there's a whole category of these templates: Category:Chemical element symbol templates. I'm not sure if you want this TfD to apply to all templates in that category, or just this one specifically. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Just to summarize what this does, it creates a link to the element and it has room for a subscript (presumably for use in chemical formulas) and two superscripts (probably one would be for oxidation state, not sure what the second one would be for). There is no /doc page that I could find. I looked at a random page where it's used and it seems like mostly Pb was used with no template.--RDBury (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- The other superscript is for atomic mass. See Category talk:Chemical element symbol templates.--RDBury (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think it could be replaced by a generic template {{isotope|element=|symbol=|amu=|protons=|count=|charge=|...}} 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, confusion arises when editors try to put a {{{lead section}}} template but put a {{{lead}}} one up instead. username 1 (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a series specific template that is unused. It has been redundunt for some time. List of Hannah Montana episodes and associated sublists use the standard Template:Episode list. AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused and unnecessary due to redundancy with generic template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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.