Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 12 April 14 >

April 13[edit]

Template:Irish county navigation box[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) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish county navigation box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to the current system which just uses template:navbox directly. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:53, 13 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.

Template:PD-URAA[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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-URAA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Requires the article to be tagged with a more specific template, and if it is, then there is no need for it. Culturally insensitive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: Yes, it requires a more specific template, but not it's not redundant, since it would still give the US copyright status (which is a legal requirement imposed on Wikimedia wikis). I'm not sure what you mean by "culturally insensitive"... do you dislike the wording of the template itself or the fact that every image has to have a US copyright tag in the first place? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More specific is better, but this is not useless. The US copyright law does have a special status here, since that's we're our servers are, and it's the law ofthe country in which the WMF is incorporated. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 16 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.

Template:Italic[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) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in eleven articles; uses more characters than italic wikimarkup. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say the same thing as I did for the template {{Bold}}. —Kri (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
will use it extensively. it delienates italic text much better than apostrophes, making articles more editor-friendly, especially articles with extensive markup. as has been pointed out, it is also not exactly the same as apostrophes. i have seen no valid reason for deletion. it should be much better publicized. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:48, 14 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.

Template:Bold[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) 00:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in four articles; uses more characters than bold wikimarkup. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template uses the HTML span tag to make the text bold, so you can't really compare it with wiki markup. It can be used in some special cases when the wiki markup doesn't work (see the documentation); it's not meant to be a substitute for it. How did conclude that it is used in four articles? A transclusion count yields 82 hits. —Kri (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A transclusion count in article space yields substantially fewer [1]. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep and leave utility templates alone already. it's not as if there aren't more pressing items that need to be fixed. what kind of argument for deletion is that it is using "more characters"?! no one is forcing usage of the template on anybody else. i would not only keep it, but publicize it in wikipedia guides so that it is on an equal footing with the code. let users choose. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Choice is not always a benefit. It plainly isn't in this case. This rote defense of useless templates got tiring a long time ago, .126. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's not plain to me why there is "no benefit" to choice in this or any other similar cases. pls explain. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
very poorly phrased. your personal like/dislike is not a basis for limiting everybody else's options. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright When would one use this instead of three apostrophes? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that is irrelevant. when it come to choices, "one" can speak with relative certainty only about themselves. i'll tell you why i use it: 1. because i use templates extensively, so this preserves consistent markup practice within articles i work on 2. because it better exposes attributes to editors (who may otherwise miss an apostrophe here or there) 3. because there's no cost involved: the parser reads the underlying code, and almost all text/word processors include an edit buffer that can type things for me at a click 4. because there have been situations where only text in <span>...</span> would work, nothing else 5. because it doesn't break anything 6. because it's my prerogative as an editor to use any available tool, and to ask for more tools as i don't know what i'm liable to need next. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Were this your personal plaything, you'd be correct. However, this is a massively collaborative project. That brings with it expectations on how articles are developed, what style is used and so on. Wikicode is no less important in that regard than anything else, and insisting on using one's own prolix calling convention for trivial bits of markup provided by the core software itself does not lend itself to that environment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:49, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_13&oldid=1146551001"