Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 2



Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive navigation

 * 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) 03:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Archive navigation

Hard-coded duplicate of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If some transclusion of the original template can be made to produce a template with the archive links then that's wonderful. Otherwise, it should be left be. Perhaps work on enabling that functionality first, and then propose to delete this afterward would be more appropriate. Greg Bard (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tested it (see the last revision of the header page, which I self-reverted) and it works perfectly. I wouldn't have nominated if I wasn't prepared to do the work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a look at that test, and it sure does not include links to the archives. So back to my original question. Greg Bard (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You looked at it on its own page. That won't work. You need to preview what happens when it is transcluded onto the talk page that it belongs to. I'm disappointed, although not surprised, that you opted to believe I was misinforming you here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No no. I looked at the "last revision" like your said, and it appeared without links. I was operating on my observation of the facts in front of me, and your credibility never entered my mind at all. If what you say is true I have no problem with that. I was already willing to wait to see what develops. Jeez. The attitude was really uncalled for. Whatev dude. Greg Bard (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell without actually making the change, you are both right. When the template up for deletion was changed to the normal "archives" box, nothing changed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, which is where you would normally see this; but the actual change needs to be made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header instead, and there, you don't get the numbered archive links anymore. This is not a problem, since that header is only used on the main project page, not on its own, so no one will see the "lack" of thoes numbered archive links; but during this discussion, Gregbard could only look through the history of the /header page, and that did give a different appearance (and lack of useful info) compared to what he is used to.

In other words: Thumperward is right in that the replacement provides the exact same functionality, and Gregbard is right that he couldn't see that. Thumperward explained the same in his latest reply here, but perhaps not in an easily understood way: the change is done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header, but needs to be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. I have now put both on the /header page, to make comparisons possible. Please check out the current version of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. Fram (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, demonstration shows this is clearly inferior to archives, which does not create red links and does not require manual updating. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2013 (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:Cr-Eng

 * 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) 03:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cr-Eng

The template uses inappropriate flags for the teams. The flags used are those of the county themselves, rather than the County Cricket Club; in many cases these differ substantially, and certainly enough that these should not be used.  Harrias  talk 06:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Old, wrong and shouldn't be used. Per nom. Johnlp (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Flags are inappropriate for these teams, and without the flags, the templates are bare wikilinks. Useless. – PeeJay 11:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination – it's incorrect and pointless to use the county flags instead, and how often would this template actually be used? I suspect that in several cases the county cricket club flag would be more recognisable than the county flag anyway, due to the frequency of use. Richard3120 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless on the basis of having the wrong flags. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No excuse for incorrect flags being used. Jack | talk page 10:36, 5 May 2013 (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:Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu

 * 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) 03:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu

There are not enough links here to warrant a navbox, since most of the linked article have been deleted as promotional or were never created, and probably will never be created. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2013 (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.