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 speedy keepPlastikspork (
talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
No reason to use a template for something like this. The link text is unlikely to ever be changed. External link templates are only useful for sites that may change their link format (e.g., YouTube) while still maintaining the same identifiers. ---
RockMFR 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. While the link is unlikely to change, the template provides a standard format for labeling links to official websites. In that regard, it's useful for consistency across the project. —C.Fred (
talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep convenient short cut to having to type "Official website" every time (albeit a very minor one). Also it serves to standardize the way official sites are linked to. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per C.Fred.
Filmcom (
talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Using templates like these provides consistent formatting across all articles.
BOVINEBOY2008 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per others, this provides a standard and a easy way to format the addresses and text.
Peachey88(
Talk Page ·Contribs) 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - per Tothwolf and C.Fred. -
NeutralHomer •
Talk • 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - gah, stop this abomination. John Vandenberg(
chat) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - highly useful template, no reason to delete.
Agent0042 (
talk) 05:06, 14 August 2009 (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.
JPG-GR (
talk) 05:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This template was created a short while before the more standard {{Tracklist}}, and would not have been proposed had {{Tracklist}} existed at the time. All of the instances of the template in articles have been updated to use {{Tracklist}} instead. Based on
WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template points 2 and 3, I think it should be deleted, and the template's creator
User:Ned Scott has also
agreed. 十八 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - not sure it qualifies under point 3, but the other reasons more than make up for that. 「
ダイノガイ千?!」? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:34, 13 August 2009 (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.
JPG-GR (
talk) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete after substitution. Single use template that fits only one article. Agreed on the lack of a need for a day by day update (how long is this going to be tracked?). Monthly would be better, or at the very least, weekly until that becomes too long.
Resolute 14:02, 14 August 2009 (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.
This template should probably be deprecated in favor of the more widely used {{top icon}} template. —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
If you only want it deprecated, why not mark it with {{tdeprecated}}, migrate all usages, and then redirect? 「
ダイノガイ千?!」? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the indenting/offsets work differently... perhaps a merge of the coding is in order.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 07:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I made the template at {{Header image}} before the new template existed. The {{top icon}} template seems a bit more robust and I have no issues with deprecating in its favor assuming variable width indents are supported with the new template. I would suggest making the Header image template a redirect or transclusion and replacing its use in {{header image set}} as well. I think this can move forward as I am the only user of the template.
Adam McCormick (
talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I will move both back to your userspace in case there is something to merge.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (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 speedy keepPlastikspork (
talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
No reason to use a template for something like this. The link text is unlikely to ever be changed. External link templates are only useful for sites that may change their link format (e.g., YouTube) while still maintaining the same identifiers. ---
RockMFR 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. While the link is unlikely to change, the template provides a standard format for labeling links to official websites. In that regard, it's useful for consistency across the project. —C.Fred (
talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep convenient short cut to having to type "Official website" every time (albeit a very minor one). Also it serves to standardize the way official sites are linked to. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per C.Fred.
Filmcom (
talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. Using templates like these provides consistent formatting across all articles.
BOVINEBOY2008 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per others, this provides a standard and a easy way to format the addresses and text.
Peachey88(
Talk Page ·Contribs) 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - per Tothwolf and C.Fred. -
NeutralHomer •
Talk • 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - gah, stop this abomination. John Vandenberg(
chat) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - highly useful template, no reason to delete.
Agent0042 (
talk) 05:06, 14 August 2009 (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.
JPG-GR (
talk) 05:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This template was created a short while before the more standard {{Tracklist}}, and would not have been proposed had {{Tracklist}} existed at the time. All of the instances of the template in articles have been updated to use {{Tracklist}} instead. Based on
WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template points 2 and 3, I think it should be deleted, and the template's creator
User:Ned Scott has also
agreed. 十八 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - not sure it qualifies under point 3, but the other reasons more than make up for that. 「
ダイノガイ千?!」? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:34, 13 August 2009 (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.
JPG-GR (
talk) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete after substitution. Single use template that fits only one article. Agreed on the lack of a need for a day by day update (how long is this going to be tracked?). Monthly would be better, or at the very least, weekly until that becomes too long.
Resolute 14:02, 14 August 2009 (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.
This template should probably be deprecated in favor of the more widely used {{top icon}} template. —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
If you only want it deprecated, why not mark it with {{tdeprecated}}, migrate all usages, and then redirect? 「
ダイノガイ千?!」? ·
Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the indenting/offsets work differently... perhaps a merge of the coding is in order.
76.66.192.144 (
talk) 07:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I made the template at {{Header image}} before the new template existed. The {{top icon}} template seems a bit more robust and I have no issues with deprecating in its favor assuming variable width indents are supported with the new template. I would suggest making the Header image template a redirect or transclusion and replacing its use in {{header image set}} as well. I think this can move forward as I am the only user of the template.
Adam McCormick (
talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I will move both back to your userspace in case there is something to merge.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (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.