March 16, 2006
- 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete all. All replaced by Portal:Philately and its subpages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Old Philately portal templates
Philately portal was migrated to use the new portal architecture. I used Portal:Apple_Macintosh as example. Need to delete:
- Template:Wikiportal:Philately/Featured
- Template:Wikiportal:Philately/Did_you_know
- Template:Wikiportal:Philately/Categories
—This unsigned comment was added by AdrianMastronardi ( talk • contribs) .
- This was nominated on March 9, but I am relisting because it was not signed and nobody else made a comment Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:47, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The template was speedy deleted before the debate ended. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:And
Template:And (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This is apparently a failed attempt at humor.
The Rod (
☎ Smith)
22:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Looks like you need a sense of humour, Roddy boy. Willrobbo 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - under WP:CSD G3: Pure Vandlism. Tagged. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 23:12, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete, so that we may all partake of the boundless ironies this creates. Oh yeah, it was created in retaliation by a banned user. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:No-speedy
Template:No-speedy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This template was created by a user (
Bucky-Convigton,) after a page he created (
Travis Reininger) was nominated for speedy deletion (he also removed the {{db-bio}} tag from that page).
LrdChaos
21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, intent (if not content) is redundant with {{ holdon}}. Angr/ talk 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete retialatory -- larsinio \---- (poke)–/\– (prod)----/ 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - pointless. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 23:15, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Guyana infobox
Template:Guyana infobox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use, not needed
MJCdetroit
19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. — Nightst a llion (?) 20:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CG 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- naryathegreat | (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or keep and redirect to Guyana. Cf. my vote above. My vote shall be the same to all similar nominations. — Insta ntnood 17:04, 22 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was moot; it's already been speedied. Angr/ talk 10:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:People stub
Template:People stub (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
I suggest this template be deleted as it duplicates {{
bio-stub}}.
LrdChaos
18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, was apparently created for use in one vanity article (since deleted). Angr/ talk 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Completely useless. Gizza Chat © 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above -- Larsinio 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- While I agree that this should be deleted I also ask people to PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS PAGE. The is a stub template, and as such is not debated on this page. Take it to SFD!
Grutness...
wha?
07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- actually, considering it was created by a known vandal and was made only for one deleted article, I speedied it. (if there are any complaints, that's what my talk page is for). Grutness... wha? 08:03, 17 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Guinea infobox
Template:Guinea infobox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use, out of date, not needed.
MJCdetroit
16:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom Gizza Chat © 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. — Nightst a llion (?) 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- naryathegreat | (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or keep and redirect to Guinea. Cf. my vote above. My vote shall be the same to all similar nominations. — Insta ntnood 17:05, 22 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Dragon Spirit Series
Template:Dragon Spirit Series (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Rather than a series, this is two games from the 1980s, with no indication that there are ever likely to be any others. Delete as too narrow.
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης)
12:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a starter of many a video game series, I only create templates if tehre are at least 3 or 4 articles to include in said series. -- Larsinio 20:45, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:User review
User:MarkSweep subst'ed this template where it was used and then deleted it. A discussion at WP:DRV resulted in neither a majority endorsing Mark's delete nor a supermajority to overturn it. I have therefore restored it so it can be discussed here at TfD. No vote from me. Angr/ talk 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per the thoughts of the majority of other people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates?oldid=43994062#Template:User_review - there is simply no criteria for deletion that this falls under according to Wikipedia policy, most of the "reasons" on the deletion review are simply "I don't like the site". Add to that the very underhand way that MarkSweep removed the template from userpages then deleted it as an "orphan", there was no valid reason for deleting in the first place because it was only an orphan because MarkSweep made it one. Bob, just Bob 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's already been undeleted, the question is keep or (re-)delete. Angr/ talk 15:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, Keep then - misunderstood. Bob, just Bob 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is beyond me why in the world a person who contributes to the Wikipedia Review forum would want an account here, but I don't think this one is particularily harmful and it is relevant to Wikipedia after all, even if we don't like it. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've been reading there and there's quite a few people that still edit on Wikipedia that post there actually, including several administrators - it's a "improve Wikipedia through constructive criticism" type forum, not a "destroy it!!!" site Bob, just Bob 15:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep relevant and useful. Consider someone posting on WR with the same nickname as some Wikipedia user. He could be either the same user or some evil impersonator. So putting this userbox is like saying, "I am really the same person". Come on, one of the rare userboxes that actually has purpose! Grue 14:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. MiraLuka 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be harmless. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Useful -- Larsinio 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This TFD is more trouble than the userbox itself. Moe ε 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep per above. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:34, 18 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was no consensus -> keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Two other uses
We've got a lot of hatnote templates. This one is too narrow, usable in only a few instances, and can be easily replaced by using two existing ones with no loss of function. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper nom. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)- Withdraw vote per User:Simetrical's comments. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Larsinio 21:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If a hatnote becomes more complex than a single sentence, I usually just use {{ dablink}} to word as the situation fits. — TKD:: Talk 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CG 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (as creator of the template, for what that's worth). There would certainly be no loss of function if two templates were used. There would also be no loss of function if all the "other uses" templates were deleted—people could just type out perfectly usable disambiguations. The point of templates such as this is to standardize usage and make the encyclopedia consistent, like any serious work. It just looks bad if some people use otheruses1/for (the line break looks ugly to me, BTW), some people use dablink, and some people don't use any template at all. {{
Two other uses}} is intended to ensure that in any case where two disambiguations are desirable, the same format is followed, so that we have a more aesthetically pleasing encyclopedia.
As for it being too narrow and usable in only a few instances, I beg to differ. There are many cases where three terms and no more are similar in appearance, and the template is useful there to remove the need for a separate click (which could be on the order of ten seconds or more during peak usage); likewise, at articles such as Dune, there may be one usage that many people want to reach, and others that must be consigned to a disambiguation page. I could probably come up with a hundred or more pages that use two or more hatnotes at the present time if I fidgeted with Special:Whatlinkshere and a spreadsheet. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep When I first learned about disambiguation templates, this was one of the first things I looked for (of course, it didn't exist at the time). I personally prefer to use {{ dablink}} as little as possible, for standardizing purposes. As for usage... Just off the top of my head, I had to do Dead Cities just the other day, as you see it now. – Unint 00:17, 22 March 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
March 16, 2006
- 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete all. All replaced by Portal:Philately and its subpages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Old Philately portal templates
Philately portal was migrated to use the new portal architecture. I used Portal:Apple_Macintosh as example. Need to delete:
- Template:Wikiportal:Philately/Featured
- Template:Wikiportal:Philately/Did_you_know
- Template:Wikiportal:Philately/Categories
—This unsigned comment was added by AdrianMastronardi ( talk • contribs) .
- This was nominated on March 9, but I am relisting because it was not signed and nobody else made a comment Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:47, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The template was speedy deleted before the debate ended. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:And
Template:And (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This is apparently a failed attempt at humor.
The Rod (
☎ Smith)
22:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Looks like you need a sense of humour, Roddy boy. Willrobbo 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - under WP:CSD G3: Pure Vandlism. Tagged. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 23:12, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete, so that we may all partake of the boundless ironies this creates. Oh yeah, it was created in retaliation by a banned user. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:No-speedy
Template:No-speedy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This template was created by a user (
Bucky-Convigton,) after a page he created (
Travis Reininger) was nominated for speedy deletion (he also removed the {{db-bio}} tag from that page).
LrdChaos
21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, intent (if not content) is redundant with {{ holdon}}. Angr/ talk 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete retialatory -- larsinio \---- (poke)–/\– (prod)----/ 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - pointless. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 23:15, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Guyana infobox
Template:Guyana infobox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use, not needed
MJCdetroit
19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. — Nightst a llion (?) 20:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CG 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- naryathegreat | (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or keep and redirect to Guyana. Cf. my vote above. My vote shall be the same to all similar nominations. — Insta ntnood 17:04, 22 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was moot; it's already been speedied. Angr/ talk 10:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:People stub
Template:People stub (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
I suggest this template be deleted as it duplicates {{
bio-stub}}.
LrdChaos
18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, was apparently created for use in one vanity article (since deleted). Angr/ talk 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Completely useless. Gizza Chat © 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above -- Larsinio 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- While I agree that this should be deleted I also ask people to PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS PAGE. The is a stub template, and as such is not debated on this page. Take it to SFD!
Grutness...
wha?
07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- actually, considering it was created by a known vandal and was made only for one deleted article, I speedied it. (if there are any complaints, that's what my talk page is for). Grutness... wha? 08:03, 17 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Guinea infobox
Template:Guinea infobox (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use, out of date, not needed.
MJCdetroit
16:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom Gizza Chat © 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. — Nightst a llion (?) 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- naryathegreat | (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or keep and redirect to Guinea. Cf. my vote above. My vote shall be the same to all similar nominations. — Insta ntnood 17:05, 22 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Dragon Spirit Series
Template:Dragon Spirit Series (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Rather than a series, this is two games from the 1980s, with no indication that there are ever likely to be any others. Delete as too narrow.
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης)
12:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a starter of many a video game series, I only create templates if tehre are at least 3 or 4 articles to include in said series. -- Larsinio 20:45, 16 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:User review
User:MarkSweep subst'ed this template where it was used and then deleted it. A discussion at WP:DRV resulted in neither a majority endorsing Mark's delete nor a supermajority to overturn it. I have therefore restored it so it can be discussed here at TfD. No vote from me. Angr/ talk 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per the thoughts of the majority of other people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates?oldid=43994062#Template:User_review - there is simply no criteria for deletion that this falls under according to Wikipedia policy, most of the "reasons" on the deletion review are simply "I don't like the site". Add to that the very underhand way that MarkSweep removed the template from userpages then deleted it as an "orphan", there was no valid reason for deleting in the first place because it was only an orphan because MarkSweep made it one. Bob, just Bob 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's already been undeleted, the question is keep or (re-)delete. Angr/ talk 15:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, Keep then - misunderstood. Bob, just Bob 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is beyond me why in the world a person who contributes to the Wikipedia Review forum would want an account here, but I don't think this one is particularily harmful and it is relevant to Wikipedia after all, even if we don't like it. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've been reading there and there's quite a few people that still edit on Wikipedia that post there actually, including several administrators - it's a "improve Wikipedia through constructive criticism" type forum, not a "destroy it!!!" site Bob, just Bob 15:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep relevant and useful. Consider someone posting on WR with the same nickname as some Wikipedia user. He could be either the same user or some evil impersonator. So putting this userbox is like saying, "I am really the same person". Come on, one of the rare userboxes that actually has purpose! Grue 14:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. MiraLuka 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep appears to be harmless. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Useful -- Larsinio 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This TFD is more trouble than the userbox itself. Moe ε 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep per above. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:34, 18 March 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 template'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 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 page.
The result of the debate was no consensus -> keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Two other uses
We've got a lot of hatnote templates. This one is too narrow, usable in only a few instances, and can be easily replaced by using two existing ones with no loss of function. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper nom. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)- Withdraw vote per User:Simetrical's comments. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Larsinio 21:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If a hatnote becomes more complex than a single sentence, I usually just use {{ dablink}} to word as the situation fits. — TKD:: Talk 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. CG 09:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (as creator of the template, for what that's worth). There would certainly be no loss of function if two templates were used. There would also be no loss of function if all the "other uses" templates were deleted—people could just type out perfectly usable disambiguations. The point of templates such as this is to standardize usage and make the encyclopedia consistent, like any serious work. It just looks bad if some people use otheruses1/for (the line break looks ugly to me, BTW), some people use dablink, and some people don't use any template at all. {{
Two other uses}} is intended to ensure that in any case where two disambiguations are desirable, the same format is followed, so that we have a more aesthetically pleasing encyclopedia.
As for it being too narrow and usable in only a few instances, I beg to differ. There are many cases where three terms and no more are similar in appearance, and the template is useful there to remove the need for a separate click (which could be on the order of ten seconds or more during peak usage); likewise, at articles such as Dune, there may be one usage that many people want to reach, and others that must be consigned to a disambiguation page. I could probably come up with a hundred or more pages that use two or more hatnotes at the present time if I fidgeted with Special:Whatlinkshere and a spreadsheet. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep When I first learned about disambiguation templates, this was one of the first things I looked for (of course, it didn't exist at the time). I personally prefer to use {{ dablink}} as little as possible, for standardizing purposes. As for usage... Just off the top of my head, I had to do Dead Cities just the other day, as you see it now. – Unint 00:17, 22 March 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.