Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 19
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 September 19)
September 19
[edit]- 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 deleted by Jreferee. Whispering 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This is really an article but Jean-Claude Petit's article already contains this information.. Balloonguy 23:18, 19 September 2007 (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). 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 redirect to Template:•. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This template isn't widely used, or if it is used, I don't think that it is used correctly. I say delete this unhelpful template, or (as an alternative) redirect this to Template:• (or one of the other bullet templates), which appears to be the most common usage, considering the fact that "•" is not readily available (please don't argue that the Wiki markup below the editing box makes it "readily available"). — If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to the other one, because this one is easier to type. >Radiant< 11:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect, per nominator, and Radiant (I can never find Template:• when I need it). GracenotesT § 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as the * is very common in historical linguistics, even if the templkate is underused, and this gives a way to describe it to users without background in the field without mentioning it repetitively (since users may only look at a particular section of a larger article.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (for now). True, this template hasn't caught on so far, which surprises me a little, as we constantly link from other abbreviations and symbols (the euro sign, the kg abbreviation, etc). But as CRGreathouse notes, this is meant for historical linguistics, where the asterisk precedes (in-line) a reconstructed form, for example *ekwos. It has nothing to do with a bullet. I have no idea why anyone would suggest redirecting to a completely unrelated template. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest it when many pages that transclude this template were used (improperly) in place of the bullet template. It seems since this debate has started, the pages who did this have been fixed (allowing this user to claim that these two templates are "completely unrelated"), reducing the number from approximately fifty to zero. However, in the future, I think that this template is a better redirect to the bullet template because of the use of the asterisk as the bullet in Wiki markup. Many users (myself included) think in Wikipedia, an asterisk is an indication of a bullet. I doubt many users would assume that {{*}} would be some sort of a linguistics template. Hopefully that makes some more sense than what I said before. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:15, 22 September 2007 (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). 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Unused. Garion96 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused. Carlosguitar 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, and I have no idea how this could ever be useful. I mean, a template with just one link? Come on! *Cremepuff222* 00:17, 26 September 2007 (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). 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Unused, redundant to {{interwiki}}.. szyslak 10:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It is not identical to t:interwiki, and appears alot more versatile than t:interwiki. It seems to duplicate the interlang links. It would be useful if there are a number of interlang targets, provided it would be modified to take a parameter. 132.205.44.5 21:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unused and interwiki does the job. Carlosguitar 14:33, 22 September 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.