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 ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This template is redundant, as the template Episode list already exists. It was used on one page, possibly in order to get around the policy shift to disallow images in episode list pages. — Ipstenu(
talk|
contribs) 23:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete never used; redundant.
Jmlk17 00:37, 18 May 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, no use, bad idea.
Punkmorten 14:57, 19 May 2007 (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.
Function templates
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 ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These templates were superseded by parser functions and have been deprecated for ages – nearly a year. Can we finally substitute the remaining uses and get rid of them? It would also be nice to do the same with {{
qif}}, but that's still protected and it seems people want to keep it indefinitely for some reason –
Gurch 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete, I was actually thinking of nominating them myself eventually. ^demon[omg plz]08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Move to
Wikipedia:Archive subpages, replace all uses with ParserFunctions The coding is an interesting historical feature. The use of the templates should be discouraged, though. Don't subst, because it won't work. --
ais523 12:18, 17 May 2007 (
UTC)
Comment I am working on a page detailing the (evil) mechanics of template conditionals.
GracenotesT § 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary and unusable.
Jmlk17 00:40, 18 May 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This template is redundant, as the template Episode list already exists. It was used on one page, possibly in order to get around the policy shift to disallow images in episode list pages. — Ipstenu(
talk|
contribs) 23:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete never used; redundant.
Jmlk17 00:37, 18 May 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (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 page.
The result of the debate was Delete ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, no use, bad idea.
Punkmorten 14:57, 19 May 2007 (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.
Function templates
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 ~
Anthøny 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
These templates were superseded by parser functions and have been deprecated for ages – nearly a year. Can we finally substitute the remaining uses and get rid of them? It would also be nice to do the same with {{
qif}}, but that's still protected and it seems people want to keep it indefinitely for some reason –
Gurch 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete, I was actually thinking of nominating them myself eventually. ^demon[omg plz]08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Move to
Wikipedia:Archive subpages, replace all uses with ParserFunctions The coding is an interesting historical feature. The use of the templates should be discouraged, though. Don't subst, because it won't work. --
ais523 12:18, 17 May 2007 (
UTC)
Comment I am working on a page detailing the (evil) mechanics of template conditionals.
GracenotesT § 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary and unusable.
Jmlk17 00:40, 18 May 2007 (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.