Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 10



Template:Invisible

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Invisible

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep seems useful, though can someone explain how "visibility:hidden" is different from "display:none" to me? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "visibility:hidden hides an element, but it will still take up the same space as before. The element will be hidden, but still affect the layout." So, hidden text will leave the appearance of whitespace in the text. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 08:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Seems useful" is as much of a non-argument as ever at TfD: templatespace is not your garden shed or your man drawer to be filled with things which are not actually used but which one hesitates to throw away "just in case". Invisible text is not going to be used in articles and obviously isn't used in any current process, so this is pointless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless clutter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:45, 12 April 2012 (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.

Template:School of Planning and Architecture

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * School of Planning and Architecture

A nav page for two institutes is quite pointless. In addition, there is no such entity as "Schools of Planning and Architecture". There is the original School of Planning and Architecture, now referred to as School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi for ease of recognition, and two new institutes, based on the same vision. The creating editor may have an agenda for creating such connection, creating the article and this template, but other than the incident of creation there is no proven and well sourced connection. See also discussion following the revert of the creation of the article. Muhandes (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2012 (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.

Template:Codenowiki

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Codenowiki

Using #tag:nowiki in a template has so many limitations that it is not worth using. Current uses are two articles where it is misued:
 * Jiddu Krishnamurti bibliography: used to nowiki brackets in a cite template title parameter, thus injecting the markup into the metadata (brackets should be percent encoded); used to nowiki colons to work around list markup misused to bold a line -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 10:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As with nowiki, this is a wholly unnecessary wrapper for straightforward wikicode and its existence simply confuses editors and makes article code inconsistent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to wiki-markup. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, confusing, and inferior to wikicode. —danhash (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep –everything i stated at nowiki applies here too. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2012 (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.

Template:CHS Alumni HOF

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CHS Alumni HOF

This template is only used to provide WP:UNDUE coverage as the receipt of this honor is not a significant award and hasn't received independent coverage. On the pages where it is used, it is disproportionate to other elements of the articles, let alone to its significance in the biography of its recipients. Frankly, even a category is overkill for this non-notable designation. Bongo  matic  05:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that our coverage of Cheltenham High School is pretty definitively overkill, regardless of whether Benjamin Netanyahu was in its Hall of Fame or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree the removal of this. I sense that perhaps we have an eager wikipedian on the staff of Cheltenham High School that is keen to promote the importance of the school. All laudible, but WP:UNDUE still applies. 212.250.142.219 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 12 April 2012 (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.