Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 20



Template:)

 * 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. Needs to be orphaned first by substing. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The most senseless template in the world I've ever seen. Olliminatore 08:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ? ? ? ? ?? Just another star in the night T 08:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cautious keep - I agree that it seems a bit pointless and obscure on its own, but together with and  it makes a set of templates for producing fancy tables. The other two templates have more code in them, so they are useful, and it makes sense to have this template too, even if it is only two characters long. See Template talk:). — sjorford  (talk)  09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the will of a series? Deceptive appearance, the type-code of this is thrice more as the Template itself (and I don't tell about wasted Server-resources, if this will get more used)!?! --Olliminatore 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that server resources weren't that much of a problem any more, unless you know otherwise...? — sjorford (talk)  19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless and redundant template. What is this for???? --Ter e nce Ong 14:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete i would have voted keep if it was an emoticon, like i originally thought --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 19:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete it's an original idea, but I think it's to redundant to be needed to exists. → A z a  Toth 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the template may be inefficient as far as code goes, but it is a good mnemonic, which I believe more important. Once one has opened a table with $($, it reads better to close it with $)$ . Editors are likely to miss the |} or to fail to recognise it as matching { . A similar mnemonic pair is   and   , which serve to "begin/end small caps". (Note that these multi-column table templates have seen extensive use on the French wiktionary, which is why I imported them to Wikipedia). Terence Ong, you should have looked at the template talk pages before making an uninformed decision on this topic: shame on you. Urhixidur 14:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Shame one me, to initiate this debate (to this tiny table-end). I've not looked who crated this, which ingenious member or admin. The elimination is my nature, I can't other, sorry. The argument mnemonic is doubtably, it could only be valid for new users, and they don't uses Templates like this. If you abandon of this tiny mnemonic, which user must (or not) look on the template_talk? "|}" is  already a "Template" for " " . regards --Olliminatore 21:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So by your logic the wikitable code "|}" should be deleted? I rest my case. Urhixidur 13:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, I'm not at all certain whether people are voting on just this one template that was originally nominated, or on all three. The other two templates in the series have not actually been TFD'd, despite AzaToth adding their links above. It clearly makes no sense to consider any one of the three templates on its own, but if the series is going to be considered altogether, can it at least be listed properly? — sjorford (talk)  18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ) for now, per sjorford's and Urhixidur's comments. A debate on the whole template series can be restarted later, with a nomination that actually adresses the benefits or problems of all the templates at once. Kusma (討論) 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think there's any use, and it's redundant. -- King of Hearts talk 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's the harm? Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 22:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, useless. Learn HTML or learn Wiki-markup, don't invent new templates to further clutter the already cluttered authoring "language". —Locke Cole • t • c 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: completely useless. --Hetar 09:22, 3 April 2006 (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 page.