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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we don't need a template for this. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A joint may have its uses, but this is not one of them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how is this about bars and taverns? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:05, 27 May 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.
common problem when citations are copied from FR wikipedia where fr:Template:img does something different. Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is English Wikipedia. Why should we be following the naming of French Wikipedia's templates? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 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:Imageinfo
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 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:Image hook
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 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:Image thumb label begin
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 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:IBI
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 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:HTT
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. Test page. WOSlinker (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
old template test used for testing methods for getting around EL spam filters, using a template for the htt in http. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 26 May 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:HRM
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 after substitution Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
used to be a flag template, like ((NS)), but since the image was removed is now somewhat pointless and could just be substituted and deleted. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 26 May 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:HIchar
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.
basically redundant to ((resize)). the stated use is for using in Swadesh lists, in which case, we should just role this into one of the Swadesh list templates. Frietjes (talk) 19:36, 26 May 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:Help-meta
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 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:Group
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.
now unused, after replacement on a single group of portal pages. if need, couple probably replaced by ((navy)) and others. confusing since we have ((group navbox)). Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 26 May 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:Greyout
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 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:Goals-A
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 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 no consensus to delete. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to ((green|''...'')). Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What harm does this template's existence cause? It's used on talk pages as a matter of personal preference (not in articles), so consistency isn't an issue. The "gi" name stands for "green italic". You've asserted that the template is redundant to ((green)) with italic formatting manually added. By that logic, ((green)) is redundant to <span style="color:green">...</span>. The purpose of templates is to take the place of longer or more complicated constructs, thereby increasing convenience and reducing the likelihood of error. Your proposed alternative entails typing twice as many characters (fourteen instead of seven) every time the template is used (often repeatedly in a given message). How would this benefit the community? For years, I did use raw code (which I assigned to keyboard shortcuts) for the quotation of talk page messages. I created this template for the benefit of editors who disliked the resultant clutter. I was reluctant to make the switch, and you've just illustrated the exact reason why: a concern that someone would deem the template "redundant" to one with different formatting and seek to delete it (without even notifying me or including an edit summary when inserting the TfD tag, as it turns out), thereby breaking my talk page messages (and those of other editors who like the template and have begun using it). —David Levy 20:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you could use ((gn|''...'')) if you want to save two characters. no talk pages would be "broken" if this is deleted, since a bot would update the transclusions. also, I didn't see "green italic" in the list of abbreviations GI, which is confusing since it is the ISO code for Gibraltar. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you could use ((gn|''...'')) if you want to save two characters. Again, how would forcing editors to manually add the italic formatting benefit the community? What harm is this template's existence causing? no talk pages would be "broken" if this is deleted, since a bot would update the transclusions. That's supposed to occur, but I've seen archived messages (some of them mine) containing broken transclusions that no one ever bothered to update. On a related note, why are you nominating templates for deletion without notifying their creators and major contributors or typing edit summaries when inserting the TfD tags? also, I didn't see "green italic" in the list of abbreviations GI, which is confusing since it is the ISO code for Gibraltar. Seriously? Are you suggesting that we aren't permitted to use abbreviations — outside the article namespace — that lack recognition in the real world? Are you suggesting that this template's name is "confusing" people because "GI" has other meanings? Should we be concerned that people might confuse ((tfd)) with Thin Film Diode? And if the name were problematic, that would justify renaming, not deletion. Do you want to move the template to ((green italic)) (with ((gi)) as a redirect)? That would be fine. —David Levy 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – After reading the above conversation, I am of the opinion that there is not a pressing reason that this template must be deleted. Additionally, there is a is an impassioned editor with a rationale to keep that seems to trump the "redundant to ((green))" argument. As to the redirect proposal, I have no opinion. Senator2029 (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zero semantic value, and presentationally redundant to ((green)) with wikitalics. We should be trying to get people not to add semantically-empty markup to their comments, rather than encouraging the creation of new minor forks to suit everyone's personal aesthetic preferences. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this template is "presentationally redundant to ((green)) with wikitalics", please explain how ((green)) isn't presentationally redundant to the raw code contained therein. Anything can be done without a template. Why do you want to force people to type additional characters over and over (thereby increasing both difficulty and the likelihood of error)? How would the community benefit? You've criticised "forks to suit everyone's personal aesthetic preferences", but you haven't explained what harm this template is causing. It isn't used in the article namespace (where consistency is important). It's used on talk pages. If editor x and editor y prefer different text quotation styles, that's fine. What do you mean by "zero semantic value"? When quoting others' messages, I use this template to set them apart from my replies (example above). How is this distinction "semantically-empty"? —David Levy 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((green)) has existed in its current form for over five years and its existence is consistent with ((red)), ((yellow)) and other basic colour templates. Were it to disappear now, we could expect a moderate degree of disruption as editors attempted to use it and found it no longer to exist. As for what harm it causes, arbitrary inconsistency makes things harder to read, always. That is why we try to be consistent on articles. For the sake of allowing people some sense of self-expression, we permit a limited degree of personalisation of discourse outside of articlespace (for instance, signature style), but that is not intended to give people carte blanche to style the rest of their input however they please. What we really should do is get Mediawiki to support <q> for inline quoting: that would give everyone the advantage of more distinct quoting, in a semantically useful way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((green)) has existed in its current form for over five years and its existence is consistent with ((red)), ((yellow)) and other basic colour templates. Were it to disappear now, we could expect a moderate degree of disruption as editors attempted to use it and found it no longer to exist. Of course. And why are those templates considered useful? Because they take the place of code that's longer and more difficult to type. Five years ago, we didn't deem ((green)) "redundant" to <span style="color:green">...</span> and delete it. As for what harm it causes, arbitrary inconsistency makes things harder to read, always. That is why we try to be consistent on articles. Conversely, this template is used in a context in which we have no consistent style from which to arbitrarily deviate. For the sake of allowing people some sense of self-expression, we permit a limited degree of personalisation of discourse outside of articlespace (for instance, signature style), but that is not intended to give people carte blanche to style the rest of their input however they please. Agreed. But this template isn't used for frivolous decoration; it's used for differentiation between quoted text and responses thereto, which makes messages easier to read and understand. The community hasn't codified a format for this purpose, so it's been left to editors' discretion. For years, I've used this exact styling. Some users recently complained about the raw code's clutter, so earlier this month, I created a template to take its place. Since then, everything's been fine (with a couple of editors even commenting that they like the template and adopting it for their own use). But now it's been nominated for deletion, with the argument that editors should instead be told to use ((green)) and italicize the text manually. Because apparently, forcing people to type twice as many characters to achieve the same output (assuming that no errors occur) will somehow benefit the community. What we really should do is get Mediawiki to support <q> for inline quoting: that would give everyone the advantage of more distinct quoting, in a semantically useful way. That seems like a sensible idea. In the meantime, we need to make do with what we have. —David Levy 11:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not be the most useful template on Wikipedia, but I haven't seen a good reason why it needs to be deleted. It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space; I don't see the problem with it. -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 30 May 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:Infobox berthing cargo spacecraft
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 merge with either ((infobox spacecraft)) or ((Infobox cargo spacecraft)). Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Single use and redundant to ((Infobox spacecraft)), to which any necessary parameters should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
either merge with ((infobox spacecraft)) or create a module/child infobox which can be embedded in ((infobox spacecraft)) which just contains the berthing information. Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Happy to help migrate this puppy. Hi, guys. Jack 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support a merger with ((infobox spacecraft)) if some of the extra features about berthing can be incorporated into that template. This is the second spacecraft that "berths" with the ISS, the other being the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle. The Cygnus (spacecraft) also "berths". If you folks don't understand the semantical difference between "berthed" and "docked" it's actually quite simple: "docked" means the spacecraft does all the work to accomplish a physical link between another spacecraft, while "berthed" means that the space vehicle needs to be assisted by another vehicle to achieve the fixed link. So please find a way to incorporate berthed, similar to the Berthing Infobox.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - ((Infobox berthing cargo spacecraft)) was based off of ((Infobox cargo spacecraft)), if you're suggesting we merge ((Infobox berthing cargo spacecraft)) then why was it not proposed to merge ((Infobox cargo spacecraft)) with ((Infobox spacecraft))? Its single use for now because the HTV mission pages have yet to be modified to use the template, the template currently used there inaccurately states that HTV docks. Three vehicles berth to the ISS (HTV, Dragon and Cygnus), if the template is chosen to be retained then over the next five years there should be at least 25 pages that will use ((Infobox berthing cargo spacecraft)) (Approximately 2 missions per year for both Cygnus and Dragon and one per year for HTV).--Craigboy (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially 25 uses in half a decade is not a sufficient justification for a fork. Just roll this back into ((infobox cargo spacecraft)), and when that's done a plan can be devised to merge that template back to ((infobox spacecraft)) as it too is redundant and seldom-used. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "roll back"?--Craigboy (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean literally "roll back" as in "revert". I mean "backport the additional features to the parent template". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unnecessary forking. There's an over-abundance of these spaceflight infobox templates, and some merging needs to be done. One of these days I'll try to get around to doing that. — Huntster (t@c) 16:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it is merged with 'Infobox cargo spacecraft', which needs berthing information to be usable for all the upcoming berthing missions. As Abebenjoe stated, berthing and docking are very different things and we can't be calling a berthing a docking, even in an infobox. We need to have both berthing and docking available in the infobox. If we are not able to add berthing information to 'Infobox cargo spacecraft', then I Oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingtipvortex (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are valid reasons for Template:Infobox cargo spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to exist, except in the most technical of circumstances "dock" and "berth" are pretty much synonymous, and hence one of the two templates is sufficient. In any case a variation can easily be incorporated into a single template, so there is no reason to retain this pointless fork. --W.D.Graham 00:41, 3 June 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:Good Girl Gone Bad
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.
Delete per nom. The two Rihanna templates seem to cover it all. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 31 May 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:Broken bar
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.
Weak keep I can see where it can be used for illustrating pre-Windows 7 ASCII displays 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As repeatedly, exhaustively restated on TfD, theoretical potential uses are not a reason to keep templates which are not used. Templatespace exists solely to provide frameworks which are needed, rather than serving as a big box of bits for every theoretically useful bit of code ever contrived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 28 May 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:Bangkok BRT lines
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.
Delete - Unused, and unlikely to be needed in the foreseeable future since the Bangkok BRT has only one line and expansion plans have been halted. Paul_012 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 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:S-line/Bangkok BRT right/Chong Nonsi
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.
Delete - Unused with almost no potential to be, since individual stations of the Bangkok BRT are unlikely to be deemed notable enough to warrant articles. Paul_012 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 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:Lightbulb is unscrewed
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.
Comment. Sorry. I didn't realize that I had to complete the template immediately. I am waiting for a lightbulb to burn out, so I can get a good photo of one to finish it. I am COI being an electrician so I feel I cannot vote either way.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this will be gut-rippingly hilarious once completed, but for the time being it shouldn't be polluting a namespace intended for actual productive use. This should be userfied. As a side note, it appears that the nominations for deletion of the associated category is incomplete. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know how many Wikipedians it takes to fix a lightbulb, but it shouldn't take a project page, two templates and two categories to tell a joke... The template serves no useful function, since the link to it from WP:LIGHTBULB is completely unnecessary and can be displayed as a piped-link and/or with a <nowiki> tag: <nowiki>((</nowiki>[[Template:Humor|Lightblub is unscrewed]]<nowiki>))</nowiki> produces ((Lightblub is unscrewed)), and it'd be even simpler if the piped link was removed. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMHO the joke worked just as well when the templates were redlinks; if a blue link is required, piped links also work as suggested by Black Falcon. – FayenaticLondon 18:19, 3 June 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:Calgary Vipers roster
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 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.