< February 3 | February 5 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary template for an inactive director of only four films. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Barely notable director of only four films, of also little notability. Excessive and unnecessary template for what is actually only two notable films. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete as redundant and per arguments raised in the Mureş County TFD Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of Template:Galanta District. roamata ( talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
1. This template just duplicate the Template:Galanta District template and push names in an non official language.
2. The Hungarian names are specified inside the articles and there is no need to specify them once again in the template.
3. The official Slovakian names are indicated just as an alternative. -- roamata ( talk) 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
4. This case is similar with the case of template Mureş County. -- roamata ( talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
ad. 1 The duplicate of Template:Galanta District would be a template containing Slovakian names and not Hungarian ones. ad 2 As The Hungarian names are specified in the articles, so this template is a navigation tool to articles which have in common that the settlements in question has an alternativ Huntgarian name, as well. ad 3 The template does not alter the articles, it is in line with WP:naming rules. More than that, the template is a 'list template' as defined by relevant wikipedia guidelines. This means that it is an exonyms list in the form of a template. I have never heared that exonym lists are forbidden. I think that it is mistake to confuse aricles with lists and templates. This whole discussion - like the other one on Maros (Mures) County template is a desperate and quite petty effort by different nationalists from certain successor states of Austria-Hungary to impose on Wikipedia their nation states' anachronistic restrictions on the use of minority languages. This template does not contrevene WP: naming conventions. If you prefer I will add Hungarian names to the Slovakian template if redundancy is really your problem. It seems that tolerance on Wiki is on the downtrend and nationalistic agenda in disguise of wikilegal blabla prevails.-- Rokarudi 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the case mentioned above, the decision was tthe following: "Consensus of responders is that this template should not be used. Romanian is the official language for the area, but several sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives."--Rokarudi 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was No consensus. RL0919 ( talk) 15:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused and unnecessary (see the documentation). Every articlespace transclusion was a broken (heh) reference to {{ broken link}}, which this previous redirected to. Recommend changing it back into a redirect to that template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by {{ about}}. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But even if it is not superceded by {{ about}}, the template is completely useless. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 06:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed all occurances of this template to {{ about}} in articlespace. It is safe to delete the template now. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 07:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete per T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Very old, unused template (in fact, it doesn't look like it was ever used). No substantial edits since 2006. Robofish ( talk) 17:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. RL0919 ( talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This template (and the related one below) were created only a few days ago, and appear to be in use to add links to the "British Comedy Guide" site. Given that there does not appear to be a consensus anywhere that the site should be linked from all related articles, the templates would appear to be unnecessary. (Is the site sufficiently notable that it warrants having its own template linking to it from every British series article on Wikipedia? One would think that the article British Comedy Guide is sufficient recognition.) Ckatz chat spy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am a regular user of comedy.co.uk - they're guides often go beyond what is on offer on the Wikipedia guide - e.g. episode-by-episode cast, and pictures of the series etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.141.237 ( talk) 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it that a template is a good idea, although it would not be the end of the world if it went, so long as the original link was left. ISD ( talk) 17:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep - the British Comedy Guide is a big reference website that is regularly worth linking to as an additional resource and this template makes that easier to do, and encourages it to be done in a consistent way Mark UK ( talk) 12:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete - not worthy of a template 131.107.0.71 ( talk) 14:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - are you seriously suggesting Britain's biggest comedy reference website, already used as a reliable reference in 100s of Wikipedia articles isn't noteworthy or used enough for a template? 149.254.49.7 ( talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep, with no prejudice against renomination at any time if the associated website is phased out or moved, as some comments suggested may be planned. RL0919 ( talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the site sufficiently notable that it warrants adding a template linking to it from every British series article on Wikipedia? One would think that the article is sufficient recognition. Ckatz chat spy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Only used for one article and not really useful elsewhere. — Markles 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this can be done, but this is not the way to do it. Drmies ( talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Old, orphaned template, which is redundant to {{ Cat Stevens}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Old, orphaned template, with mostly redlinks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete by Tbsdy lives per T2 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
See WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Template exists as a disclaimer and to express an unnecessary bias against traditional Chinese medicine. Be skeptical, yes, and provide any counter-evidence you know of in the article, yes, and make nice navboxes to link between TCM topics, yes, but don't tag the articles with something that looks like an error message based on their content.. Wnt ( talk) 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
to prevent it from showing all articles with transclusions under
CAT:SD, and re-added the {{
tfd}} tag, as this TFD is still open.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)< February 3 | February 5 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary template for an inactive director of only four films. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Barely notable director of only four films, of also little notability. Excessive and unnecessary template for what is actually only two notable films. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete as redundant and per arguments raised in the Mureş County TFD Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of Template:Galanta District. roamata ( talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
1. This template just duplicate the Template:Galanta District template and push names in an non official language.
2. The Hungarian names are specified inside the articles and there is no need to specify them once again in the template.
3. The official Slovakian names are indicated just as an alternative. -- roamata ( talk) 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
4. This case is similar with the case of template Mureş County. -- roamata ( talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
ad. 1 The duplicate of Template:Galanta District would be a template containing Slovakian names and not Hungarian ones. ad 2 As The Hungarian names are specified in the articles, so this template is a navigation tool to articles which have in common that the settlements in question has an alternativ Huntgarian name, as well. ad 3 The template does not alter the articles, it is in line with WP:naming rules. More than that, the template is a 'list template' as defined by relevant wikipedia guidelines. This means that it is an exonyms list in the form of a template. I have never heared that exonym lists are forbidden. I think that it is mistake to confuse aricles with lists and templates. This whole discussion - like the other one on Maros (Mures) County template is a desperate and quite petty effort by different nationalists from certain successor states of Austria-Hungary to impose on Wikipedia their nation states' anachronistic restrictions on the use of minority languages. This template does not contrevene WP: naming conventions. If you prefer I will add Hungarian names to the Slovakian template if redundancy is really your problem. It seems that tolerance on Wiki is on the downtrend and nationalistic agenda in disguise of wikilegal blabla prevails.-- Rokarudi 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the case mentioned above, the decision was tthe following: "Consensus of responders is that this template should not be used. Romanian is the official language for the area, but several sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives."--Rokarudi 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was No consensus. RL0919 ( talk) 15:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused and unnecessary (see the documentation). Every articlespace transclusion was a broken (heh) reference to {{ broken link}}, which this previous redirected to. Recommend changing it back into a redirect to that template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by {{ about}}. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But even if it is not superceded by {{ about}}, the template is completely useless. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 06:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed all occurances of this template to {{ about}} in articlespace. It is safe to delete the template now. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 07:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete per T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Very old, unused template (in fact, it doesn't look like it was ever used). No substantial edits since 2006. Robofish ( talk) 17:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. RL0919 ( talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This template (and the related one below) were created only a few days ago, and appear to be in use to add links to the "British Comedy Guide" site. Given that there does not appear to be a consensus anywhere that the site should be linked from all related articles, the templates would appear to be unnecessary. (Is the site sufficiently notable that it warrants having its own template linking to it from every British series article on Wikipedia? One would think that the article British Comedy Guide is sufficient recognition.) Ckatz chat spy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am a regular user of comedy.co.uk - they're guides often go beyond what is on offer on the Wikipedia guide - e.g. episode-by-episode cast, and pictures of the series etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.141.237 ( talk) 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it that a template is a good idea, although it would not be the end of the world if it went, so long as the original link was left. ISD ( talk) 17:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep - the British Comedy Guide is a big reference website that is regularly worth linking to as an additional resource and this template makes that easier to do, and encourages it to be done in a consistent way Mark UK ( talk) 12:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete - not worthy of a template 131.107.0.71 ( talk) 14:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - are you seriously suggesting Britain's biggest comedy reference website, already used as a reliable reference in 100s of Wikipedia articles isn't noteworthy or used enough for a template? 149.254.49.7 ( talk) 21:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep, with no prejudice against renomination at any time if the associated website is phased out or moved, as some comments suggested may be planned. RL0919 ( talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the site sufficiently notable that it warrants adding a template linking to it from every British series article on Wikipedia? One would think that the article is sufficient recognition. Ckatz chat spy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Only used for one article and not really useful elsewhere. — Markles 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this can be done, but this is not the way to do it. Drmies ( talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Old, orphaned template, which is redundant to {{ Cat Stevens}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 ( talk) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Old, orphaned template, with mostly redlinks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete by Tbsdy lives per T2 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
See WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Template exists as a disclaimer and to express an unnecessary bias against traditional Chinese medicine. Be skeptical, yes, and provide any counter-evidence you know of in the article, yes, and make nice navboxes to link between TCM topics, yes, but don't tag the articles with something that looks like an error message based on their content.. Wnt ( talk) 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
to prevent it from showing all articles with transclusions under
CAT:SD, and re-added the {{
tfd}} tag, as this TFD is still open.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
04:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)