Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 8 - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 replacement with more generic templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Img1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Img2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused outside of userspace, could be moved to that user's space. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a category and documentation for this template and plan to use it eventually in some flora tables for the general population.--Nonenmac (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unnecessarily duplicates the image syntax as a template. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Please do not delete. Img1 actually provides an adjustable white border that can be used to expand an image to the width of a table cell. Img2 combines 2 images within a single white border to fill a table cell. Using these two templates helps provide a consistent appearance in a table column where image proportions vary, especially when some of the images are drawings with white backgrounds and others are photographs. See User:Nonenmac/Flora of -- Nonenmac (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfying these wouldn't make much sense, as they're primarily used in articlespace drafts. They should simply be deleted. This is 2012, which is at least a decade after anyone should have stopped using tables for presentational trivia like padding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{img1}}. Not needed; instead use [[File:Example.png|x100px]] (note the "x"), where 100 is the desired height. Keep {{img2}} but rewrite so it uses <div>...</div> tags instead of tables, per Chris. (I see that Chris wants it deleted, but I am not sure what he would like to see it replaced with.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 8 July 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) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasoning as presented at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Template:MLB roster footer. This template adds irrelevant links to the rosters of all teams onto every team article, sending the reader into template namespace no less, rather than an actually useful article. Moreover, the roster templates already have "more rosters" links that serves the same function and sends the reader to a superior list article. Resolute 03:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including {{CFL staff footer}} with this nomination for the same reason. Resolute 03:38, 8 July 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) 00:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grey Cup venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and redundant to {{Grey Cup}}, which also lists each year's Grey Cup game in a more logical fashion. On top of redundancy, the template is an utter mess given that it jumps from city to city and game to game in a non-obvious order that actively hinders navigation. The intended function of this template is addressed in a far superior fashion at List of Grey Cup champions. Resolute 03:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clean. You're right that this links to all the Grey Cups, when we already have a template that does so, but this is a navbox to venues that have held the Cup. Surely this template has some value if it only lists the venues. 117Avenue (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I agree. It is effectively a case of performer by performance. It would be like creating a template for the stadiums that U2 has played. Moreover, there is no reason to link Rosedale Field and McMahon Stadium in a template as the two facilities share no relation other than the fact they both hosted football games. Resolute 15:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no strong connection between venues. the links in the main Grey Cup template are enough. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 9 July 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.