- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Go for it! 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Box-header-groovy
Un-used. cj | talk 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Hey, why are you attacking my designs, CJ? It looks interesting. It could work well for a portal about games or something funky. I tried it out on Health, but it was a bit too groovy for that subject. Treat it like a tool in a toolbox. When someone (probably me) needs it, it'll be there. But not if you delete it. I've been away from the portals for awhile, but once I'm done in the Wikipedia namespace, I'll be back, and I plan on doing some more experimenting on portal design. It would sure help if I could pick up where I left off -- but I can't if where I left off has been erased. --
Go for it! 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense again. Further to the points about rounded-corners elsewhere, this is namespace pollution.-- cj | talk 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not being used is not grounds for deletion. Keep it there and see how it goes!
Werdna648
T/
C\
@ 00:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it is grounds for deletion, and in this case especially so. These templates shouldn't really reside in the portal namespace at all, as they do presently. Moreover, there is no point to a template not being used. If the code is desired for use (which, in this instance, it shouldn't, for other reasons) than it can be simply entered for use on the appropriate portals' subpage. Templates are created only where they are widely needed - this page is clearly not. Hence, namespace pollution.-- cj | talk 17:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Give it a chance -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. -- Go for it! 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Portal:Box-header-groovy
Un-used. cj | talk 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Hey, why are you attacking my designs, CJ? It looks interesting. It could work well for a portal about games or something funky. I tried it out on Health, but it was a bit too groovy for that subject. Treat it like a tool in a toolbox. When someone (probably me) needs it, it'll be there. But not if you delete it. I've been away from the portals for awhile, but once I'm done in the Wikipedia namespace, I'll be back, and I plan on doing some more experimenting on portal design. It would sure help if I could pick up where I left off -- but I can't if where I left off has been erased. --
Go for it! 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense again. Further to the points about rounded-corners elsewhere, this is namespace pollution.-- cj | talk 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not being used is not grounds for deletion. Keep it there and see how it goes!
Werdna648
T/
C\
@ 00:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it is grounds for deletion, and in this case especially so. These templates shouldn't really reside in the portal namespace at all, as they do presently. Moreover, there is no point to a template not being used. If the code is desired for use (which, in this instance, it shouldn't, for other reasons) than it can be simply entered for use on the appropriate portals' subpage. Templates are created only where they are widely needed - this page is clearly not. Hence, namespace pollution.-- cj | talk 17:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Give it a chance -
• | Đܧ§§Ť | •
T |
C 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.