Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10

[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) 00:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"visibility:hidden hides an element, but it will still take up the same space as before. The element will be hidden, but still affect the layout."[1] So, hidden text will leave the appearance of whitespace in the text. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 08:58, 11 April 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.
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) 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:School of Planning and Architecture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A nav page for two institutes is quite pointless. In addition, there is no such entity as "Schools of Planning and Architecture". There is the original School of Planning and Architecture, now referred to as School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi for ease of recognition, and two new institutes, based on the same vision. The creating editor may have an agenda for creating such connection, creating the article and this template, but other than the incident of creation there is no proven and well sourced connection. See also discussion following the revert of the creation of the article. Muhandes (talk) 16:48, 10 April 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.
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) 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Using #tag:nowiki in a template has so many limitations that it is not worth using. Current uses are two articles where it is misued:

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) 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHS Alumni HOF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only used to provide WP:UNDUE coverage as the receipt of this honor is not a significant award and hasn't received independent coverage. On the pages where it is used, it is disproportionate to other elements of the articles, let alone to its significance in the biography of its recipients. Frankly, even a category is overkill for this non-notable designation. Bongomatic 05:47, 10 April 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.