Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 8

[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, per this discussion and discussion for {{times}} below. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template should be deleted for the same reason as {{times}} listed below. JIMp talk·cont 23:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to add much value over alternatives. Not used.
Keep per reasons 'times' should be kept. --168.122.165.145 (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another pointless template that can be achieved with a single character. Processing of pages with pointless templates slow down the rendering of pages. Keith D (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike {{times}} below, there are multiple similar-looking characters, which makes it difficult to just use the edit window toolbar to enter it using more direct means. Besides, some people are rather picky about how long their lines of black pixels are, so any aids in this area are useful. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but − is shorter to type and works just as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:26, 17 August 2011 (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.
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) 02:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Km2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links to a common unit contrary to wp:overlink. Without the link, it saves just a few characters. Appears to add little value. I hope there aren't more like this. Lightmouse (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2011 (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.
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) 00:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template does no more than what × does. The html code is two characters shorter but even easier still is using the "×" in the tool box. I don't see the point in this template. JIMp talk·cont 02:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested table is a good idea - and making it easy to find on Wikipedia would be one of the challenges.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It might be appropriate as a reference in wp:mos to a page in in 'Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting)' Lightmouse (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Help:Entering special characters. Art LaPella (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 2{{times}}2=4 is easier to understand than the html code as a way of writing 2×2=4. Though what is wrong with 2x2=4? The later uses an 'x' for the × sign.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use ascii 'x' and it works most of the time. Although I'm happy for a bot or gnoming editor to make it into a special character. Lightmouse (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (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.