< October 29 | October 31 > |
---|
The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
All of these templates are on inline templates that serve no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink or colour formatting. SkierRMH 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Also nominating:
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned and superceded by Template:Infobox cricketer biography. No longer used in article namespace — AMBerry ( talk | contribs) 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per CSD G4. This has been discussed so many times before. If, as Anthony suggests, that consensus needs to be reconsidered, the place to do that is WP:DRV. Xoloz 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Vote symbols are clearly against community consensus in WP:RFA, WP:XFD. I came across this in an RfA, it is giving out the wrong impression to users who are unaware that using vote symbols is not appropriate.. Qst 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose'''
and [[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''
in their 'stead, and thus deleting them would simply seem to be adding extra workload for those who wish to present their arguments with the aid of visual representation. Likewise, I'm not of the opinion that "previous community consensus" is a hugely reliable reason for deletion - after all, we're here to re-establish said consensus, as laid out in
WP:CON, and precedents are not a valid replacement for logical, sound reasoning. Having said that,
Voting is Evil and tools that blatantly aid that being kept is questionable...
Anthøny
19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of newer navigational tools such as {{ Scientology}} and the new portal, Portal:Scientology, both of which take up much less space and are much less obtrusive on pages because the footer is defaulted to autocollapsed - I am nominating this template for deletion. At any rate "Scientology" as a topic is no longer a single article series on Wikipedia, but a larger subject matter. Those who wish to work on a smaller subset as a "Series" may create unobtrusive footers with {{ Navbox}}, or smaller tighter series like {{ Scientology and the Internet}} (which may itself switch to a more unobtrusive footer at some point) Sorry for the long explanation. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete under Speedy G7 (author requested). MJCdetroit 02:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
< October 29 | October 31 > |
---|
The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
All of these templates are on inline templates that serve no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink or colour formatting. SkierRMH 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Also nominating:
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned and superceded by Template:Infobox cricketer biography. No longer used in article namespace — AMBerry ( talk | contribs) 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per CSD G4. This has been discussed so many times before. If, as Anthony suggests, that consensus needs to be reconsidered, the place to do that is WP:DRV. Xoloz 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Vote symbols are clearly against community consensus in WP:RFA, WP:XFD. I came across this in an RfA, it is giving out the wrong impression to users who are unaware that using vote symbols is not appropriate.. Qst 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose'''
and [[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''
in their 'stead, and thus deleting them would simply seem to be adding extra workload for those who wish to present their arguments with the aid of visual representation. Likewise, I'm not of the opinion that "previous community consensus" is a hugely reliable reason for deletion - after all, we're here to re-establish said consensus, as laid out in
WP:CON, and precedents are not a valid replacement for logical, sound reasoning. Having said that,
Voting is Evil and tools that blatantly aid that being kept is questionable...
Anthøny
19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of newer navigational tools such as {{ Scientology}} and the new portal, Portal:Scientology, both of which take up much less space and are much less obtrusive on pages because the footer is defaulted to autocollapsed - I am nominating this template for deletion. At any rate "Scientology" as a topic is no longer a single article series on Wikipedia, but a larger subject matter. Those who wish to work on a smaller subset as a "Series" may create unobtrusive footers with {{ Navbox}}, or smaller tighter series like {{ Scientology and the Internet}} (which may itself switch to a more unobtrusive footer at some point) Sorry for the long explanation. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete under Speedy G7 (author requested). MJCdetroit 02:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)