Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

Template:BBC Sci-fi

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) 05:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BBC Sci-fi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unfortunately, this well-meaning template shouldn't really be a template, but a category. The main problem is its rather loose interpretation of "science fiction". As we saw at the previous deletion debate for "Template:BBC Comedy", it's just too broadly defined to base a useful template on - Quatermass mingles next to Goodnight Sweetheart, radio dramas next to television sitcoms. As the talk page shows, the inclusion criteria are somewhat patchy - the only thing these programmes share is that they have been commissioned by the BBC. Bob talk 23:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 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.

Template:Zoos of Nova Scotia

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) 05:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zoos of Nova Scotia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one zoo so it's not useful. ~~EBE123~~(talk) 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not necessary, not useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since I created it, I'm only going to comment and not vote here. The template was created to be consistent with other Canadian Zoo articles. Id does tell the reader that there are no other zoos in the province, though that's about the only information it imparts. We had the same situation in a number of US States as well before I started creating templates (and still do, I think, though it's been a while since I looked so I would need to go back). If this gets deleted, there are probably a few others that should go the same way. Donlammers (talk) 11:23, 4 February 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.

Template:Check link

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, unused and basically redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Check link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, not documented and doesn't seem ot have a useful purpose. WOSlinker (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I WP:BOLDly made it into something more useful. It will now check the existence of the provided link and bluelink if it exists, if it doesn't it provides black text. I think this was the intention of the author in any case. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from Template:auto link? Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It won't display anything if no parameters are provided. "auto link" will display "(((1)))" if the parameter is missing. Otherwise, there is no difference. I didn't notice "auto link" before. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 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.

Template:Anime-links

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) 05:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anime-links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use. Template simply was a pass-through for three other external link templates. Only 130 pages ever transcended this templates and most of the time, only Anime News Network was set. —Farix (t | c) 13:57, 3 February 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.

Template:Editconf

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 to {{edit conflict}}. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template simply duplicates the functionality of {{editconflict}}, and it is hardly transcluded anywhere. Also, including images can increase server load. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{edit conflict}}. This template is redundant, negligible use, generally bad (image use). Not necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC
Redirect to {{edit conflict}}. Like ttato said, it's redundant to {{editconflict}}. Additionally, the images are annoying and not really useful. The whole idea of an edit conflict template is to unobtrusively state that you encountered an edit conflict. The images just call even more attention to the template. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:10, 4 February 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.