- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Template:TFL-editnotice ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused; {{ TFL title}} was deleted per this discussion. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to have lost its purpose in life. Nigej ( talk) 21:22, 1 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Plastikspork per CSD G2. (non-admin closure) ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
unused and broken (probably created by mistake) Frietjes ( talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nigej ( talk) 20:04, 1 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 March 8. Izno ( talk) 17:52, 8 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Template:Star Control franchise (the argument formerly known as T3). Certes ( talk) 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Creator seems to have made a duplicate rather than moving. Nigej ( talk) 17:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Izno ( talk) 00:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete just seeing this now. New user created this in the midst of a content disagreement. This bypasses the consensus at DRN, guided by neutral mediation and reliable sources. Tagging User:Nightenbelle just for neutral oversight. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Template:Star Control franchise now redirects to Template:Star Control original series, a third version which I overlooked. Certes ( talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both the new templates. Redirect is also fine. We already hashed this out and it’s time to move on. Jorahm ( talk) 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I made the template but had intended on it being a sandbox not a published template that I was working on as a tentative illustration for a talk discussion. -- EggsHam ( talk) 00:05, 3 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Looks like there may be some consensus to change the output format or restrict it to non-articles, but no consensus to delete entirely. Feel free to continue the discussion on the template's talk page! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Template:? ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is insufficiently complex to need its own template. It's also hard to access from the browser bar. Lastly, the last TFD's opinions look quite unpersuasive from a today's point of view. Izno ( talk) 07:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know jack about templates, but this is used a lot at Contributor copyright investigations. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk/ CCI help 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this is used 710 times and has no technical or other issues - while it might be simple, it's used enough to warrant keeping.
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs)
01:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's current use in articles fails
WP:MOSBOLD and
WP:MOSITALIC as a start. There is a separate template for unknown in tables. Elsewhere it might be reasonable, but elsewhere doesn't need this level of 'standardization' as it was framed over a decade ago. Put a question mark in whatever you're working and be done. --
Izno (
talk)
02:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- apparently it's used in CCI (over half the transclusions are in project-space)? I agree that it shouldn't be used in articles. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's current use in articles fails
WP:MOSBOLD and
WP:MOSITALIC as a start. There is a separate template for unknown in tables. Elsewhere it might be reasonable, but elsewhere doesn't need this level of 'standardization' as it was framed over a decade ago. Put a question mark in whatever you're working and be done. --
Izno (
talk)
02:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep In use at CCI. --
AntiCompositeNumber (
talk)
00:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really see why one should need a bold-italic question mark available. I assume a normal question mark would work in all cases. -- Izno ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Intensively used in various lists within WikiProject Telecommunications.
Nightwalker-87 (
talk)
20:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be used in mainspace per its documentation. -- Izno ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Modify so that it makes use of
?, facilitating the use of escaped question marks. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 03:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC) - Subst and delete - I realise I'm taking a contrarian position here, but I cannot see any reason to have this. Invoking the template (
{{?}}) is 5 characters, and the inserted text ('''''?''''') is 11 characters. Do we need a template to 'save' six characters? You can click the "bold" and "italic" options in the editor to do this in two clicks anyway, if you're worried about aligning the number of quote marks on each side. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC) - keep - the road to deletion is to first get rid of the use of the template by substituting it with a better one (named "unknown" or something) - once there are almost zero uses of the template then come back and I'll happily vote delete. N.B. the value of the template is not the content, it's the fact that it gives a clear place to find unknown values in tables and then start doing research to fix them.
StacksofHoy (
talk)
18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just as an administrative note, this is absolutely not the way to proceed for a nomination; the discussion comes first, and then the outcome is decided. Substing a template with the intention of saying "it's no longer used" is disruptive and has caused some TFDs to swing the other direction. Primefac ( talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ping to StacksofHoy just in case they're not watching this page. Primefac ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Oh, no no no.
Izno is absolutely correct, this is an accessibility issue. But this requires review. Usage as a symbol should be replaced with {{
hmmm}}. Usage as text should be either substituted or replaced with a properly encoded strong-em. --
Bsherr (
talk)
18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bsherr perhaps subst then redirect to {{ Hmmm}}? Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 18:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
, 
, and ? appear visually compatible to me. 
is not quite compatible (for the use in CCI, namely); it is a bit too prominent. I would be fine with another, smaller version, but I'm not aware of such a template, and this one could serve that purpose. —
The Earwig (
talk)
18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @
The Earwig What about the (recently created)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tentative?
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
08:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it's the right size at least. Still doesn't really fit with the other two visually (bare symbols, not encircled), but the image can be changed. The name, even with the
{{WP:CCI/T}}redirect, is still longer than just typing'''''?'''''and doesn't match{{ y}}and{{ n}}. Did you want to get rid of those templates as well? — The Earwig ( talk) 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)- Er, that's why I proposed to to retarget this there or that here. (And I do not want to get rid of these templates, if this is not yet clear after the first sentence.)
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that you said retarget! My bad. That makes more sense. We'll probably want to move it to the template space (and name it in a way that is not CCI-specific?), but keeping {{
?}} as a redirect to something with a more descriptive name sounds good to me. —
The Earwig (
talk)
14:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- In my comment below, I tried to say that either retargeting the template to that page or moving the page into the template space is fine by me. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that you said retarget! My bad. That makes more sense. We'll probably want to move it to the template space (and name it in a way that is not CCI-specific?), but keeping {{
?}} as a redirect to something with a more descriptive name sounds good to me. —
The Earwig (
talk)
14:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Er, that's why I proposed to to retarget this there or that here. (And I do not want to get rid of these templates, if this is not yet clear after the first sentence.)
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it's the right size at least. Still doesn't really fit with the other two visually (bare symbols, not encircled), but the image can be changed. The name, even with the
- @
The Earwig What about the (recently created)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tentative?
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
08:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, but restrict to project space.
Do we need a template to 'save' six characters?
→ Yes, when used hundreds of times on a page. Typing'''''?'''''manually is annoying; I don't see a compelling reason to break existing process for this.I assume a normal question mark would work in all cases.
→ Yes, we can replace all of our image templates like {{ done}}/{{ not done}} with text and the meaning would still be clear. We don't do this because we find the styling useful for a quick gloss. This should be a good enough reason to allow its use—in the project space—but it should be removed from articles for the accessibility reasons highlighted above. How to do this? One option would be replace existing uses with the correct table template and prevent its future transclusion by displaying a helpful error instead, like {{ collapse}}. — The Earwig ( talk) 18:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC) - Use
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tentative (subst this and retarget there, or subst this and retarget that here). It uses the icon
as in {{
Notsure}}, {{
Question}}, and {{
MoreInfo}}, and fits the other two templates used at CCI nicely in my opinion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
08:50, 10 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Template:TFL-editnotice ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused; {{ TFL title}} was deleted per this discussion. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to have lost its purpose in life. Nigej ( talk) 21:22, 1 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Plastikspork per CSD G2. (non-admin closure) ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
unused and broken (probably created by mistake) Frietjes ( talk) 16:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nigej ( talk) 20:04, 1 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 March 8. Izno ( talk) 17:52, 8 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Template:Star Control franchise (the argument formerly known as T3). Certes ( talk) 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Creator seems to have made a duplicate rather than moving. Nigej ( talk) 17:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Izno ( talk) 00:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete just seeing this now. New user created this in the midst of a content disagreement. This bypasses the consensus at DRN, guided by neutral mediation and reliable sources. Tagging User:Nightenbelle just for neutral oversight. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Template:Star Control franchise now redirects to Template:Star Control original series, a third version which I overlooked. Certes ( talk) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both the new templates. Redirect is also fine. We already hashed this out and it’s time to move on. Jorahm ( talk) 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I made the template but had intended on it being a sandbox not a published template that I was working on as a tentative illustration for a talk discussion. -- EggsHam ( talk) 00:05, 3 March 2021 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Looks like there may be some consensus to change the output format or restrict it to non-articles, but no consensus to delete entirely. Feel free to continue the discussion on the template's talk page! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Template:? ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is insufficiently complex to need its own template. It's also hard to access from the browser bar. Lastly, the last TFD's opinions look quite unpersuasive from a today's point of view. Izno ( talk) 07:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Subst and delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know jack about templates, but this is used a lot at Contributor copyright investigations. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk/ CCI help 17:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this is used 710 times and has no technical or other issues - while it might be simple, it's used enough to warrant keeping.
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs)
01:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's current use in articles fails
WP:MOSBOLD and
WP:MOSITALIC as a start. There is a separate template for unknown in tables. Elsewhere it might be reasonable, but elsewhere doesn't need this level of 'standardization' as it was framed over a decade ago. Put a question mark in whatever you're working and be done. --
Izno (
talk)
02:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- apparently it's used in CCI (over half the transclusions are in project-space)? I agree that it shouldn't be used in articles. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's current use in articles fails
WP:MOSBOLD and
WP:MOSITALIC as a start. There is a separate template for unknown in tables. Elsewhere it might be reasonable, but elsewhere doesn't need this level of 'standardization' as it was framed over a decade ago. Put a question mark in whatever you're working and be done. --
Izno (
talk)
02:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep In use at CCI. --
AntiCompositeNumber (
talk)
00:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really see why one should need a bold-italic question mark available. I assume a normal question mark would work in all cases. -- Izno ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Intensively used in various lists within WikiProject Telecommunications.
Nightwalker-87 (
talk)
20:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be used in mainspace per its documentation. -- Izno ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Modify so that it makes use of
?, facilitating the use of escaped question marks. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 03:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC) - Subst and delete - I realise I'm taking a contrarian position here, but I cannot see any reason to have this. Invoking the template (
{{?}}) is 5 characters, and the inserted text ('''''?''''') is 11 characters. Do we need a template to 'save' six characters? You can click the "bold" and "italic" options in the editor to do this in two clicks anyway, if you're worried about aligning the number of quote marks on each side. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC) - keep - the road to deletion is to first get rid of the use of the template by substituting it with a better one (named "unknown" or something) - once there are almost zero uses of the template then come back and I'll happily vote delete. N.B. the value of the template is not the content, it's the fact that it gives a clear place to find unknown values in tables and then start doing research to fix them.
StacksofHoy (
talk)
18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just as an administrative note, this is absolutely not the way to proceed for a nomination; the discussion comes first, and then the outcome is decided. Substing a template with the intention of saying "it's no longer used" is disruptive and has caused some TFDs to swing the other direction. Primefac ( talk) 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ping to StacksofHoy just in case they're not watching this page. Primefac ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 00:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Oh, no no no.
Izno is absolutely correct, this is an accessibility issue. But this requires review. Usage as a symbol should be replaced with {{
hmmm}}. Usage as text should be either substituted or replaced with a properly encoded strong-em. --
Bsherr (
talk)
18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bsherr perhaps subst then redirect to {{ Hmmm}}? Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 18:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- , , and ? appear visually compatible to me. is not quite compatible (for the use in CCI, namely); it is a bit too prominent. I would be fine with another, smaller version, but I'm not aware of such a template, and this one could serve that purpose. —
The Earwig (
talk)
18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @
The Earwig What about the (recently created)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tentative?
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
08:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it's the right size at least. Still doesn't really fit with the other two visually (bare symbols, not encircled), but the image can be changed. The name, even with the
{{WP:CCI/T}}redirect, is still longer than just typing'''''?'''''and doesn't match{{ y}}and{{ n}}. Did you want to get rid of those templates as well? — The Earwig ( talk) 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)- Er, that's why I proposed to to retarget this there or that here. (And I do not want to get rid of these templates, if this is not yet clear after the first sentence.)
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that you said retarget! My bad. That makes more sense. We'll probably want to move it to the template space (and name it in a way that is not CCI-specific?), but keeping {{
?}} as a redirect to something with a more descriptive name sounds good to me. —
The Earwig (
talk)
14:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- In my comment below, I tried to say that either retargeting the template to that page or moving the page into the template space is fine by me. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that you said retarget! My bad. That makes more sense. We'll probably want to move it to the template space (and name it in a way that is not CCI-specific?), but keeping {{
?}} as a redirect to something with a more descriptive name sounds good to me. —
The Earwig (
talk)
14:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Er, that's why I proposed to to retarget this there or that here. (And I do not want to get rid of these templates, if this is not yet clear after the first sentence.)
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it's the right size at least. Still doesn't really fit with the other two visually (bare symbols, not encircled), but the image can be changed. The name, even with the
- @
The Earwig What about the (recently created)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tentative?
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
08:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, but restrict to project space.
Do we need a template to 'save' six characters?
→ Yes, when used hundreds of times on a page. Typing'''''?'''''manually is annoying; I don't see a compelling reason to break existing process for this.I assume a normal question mark would work in all cases.
→ Yes, we can replace all of our image templates like {{ done}}/{{ not done}} with text and the meaning would still be clear. We don't do this because we find the styling useful for a quick gloss. This should be a good enough reason to allow its use—in the project space—but it should be removed from articles for the accessibility reasons highlighted above. How to do this? One option would be replace existing uses with the correct table template and prevent its future transclusion by displaying a helpful error instead, like {{ collapse}}. — The Earwig ( talk) 18:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC) - Use
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tentative (subst this and retarget there, or subst this and retarget that here). It uses the icon as in {{
Notsure}}, {{
Question}}, and {{
MoreInfo}}, and fits the other two templates used at CCI nicely in my opinion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
08:50, 10 March 2021 (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).