Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 17



Template:Infobox T&W Metro station

 * 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2014 (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:100%

 * 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) 04:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 100%
 * 80%
 * 85%
 * 90%
 * 95%
 * 105%
 * 110%
 * 115%
 * 120%
 * 150%

100% outputs, which is the equevilent of "do nothing with the font size". Therefor completely useless. Also, ambiguous, generic naming for all other templates. 09:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The point of these convenience templates is to have short names. Where used, it is apparent what they mean/do. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * New editors don't know about their existence, and when they ancounter them, it is not clear what they do. I don't think it is that apparent, until you look at the template code.  10:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it is quickly evident what e.g. does between code and page, after which subsequent encounters with  templates have a point of reference (even if curiosity and/or uncertainty hasn't already prompted an editor to visit the template page/s, encounter resize and Resize shortcuts, etc). Perhaps some more opinions are needed. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * delete all as redundant to resize. Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Frietjes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Frietjes; though typing-aid templates seem to be popular, this seems better handled by resize —PC-XT+ 00:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. If – more likely, when – these templates are deleted, will e.g. a bot be tasked to replace all instances of with ..?
 * 2. Should the other resizing convenience templates listed here also therefore be replaced/deleted..?
 * Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to whomever closes this discussion: Please address 1. above before closing. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * keep - much better name than small, smaller or big, bigger and large. Christian75 (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2014 (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:Cross out

 * 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.
 * Addendum. I missed that this was still in open discussions, and I goofed up by closing prematurely. However, since the template is unused, and the author has no other plans with it, I'd like to keep this close, even if it is out of process. If anyone has objections to that, feel free to undo this close, and ask for undeletion (by me, or anyone else). No need to go by me first or any of that red tape. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cross out

This is a newly created, yet unused, template to cross out words using . I see two problems with this. It is redundant to html tags s and del, and the documentation also mentions problems where  tags are needed. I may have fixed the latter problem with this edit, but I'm not really sure what template errors the documentation is talking about. —PC-XT+ 07:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps convert into redirect to Strikethrough..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * delete (or redirect to Template:Strikethrough) Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused. No redirect needed.  21:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused. No redirect needed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — The creator replied here. —PC-XT+ 06:32, 22 November 2014 (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:Coding

 * 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Coding

Unused except for two transclusions on historical BOTREQ pages, where it appears the user wanted instead. I'm not sure having a cleanup template referring to markup is a good idea in the first place; if someone is going to the effort of applying such a template, they may as well run the page through one of the many automatic-cleanup gadgets that are available, and spend a few seconds double-checking... Reticulated Spline (t &bull; c) 00:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and document into the cleanup message system. How are you going to teach every editor on Wikipedia how to use all the automated tools? And are those tools available on every computing platform that editors come from? It just needs better English, and documentation into the cleanup system so that people know it exists. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete because we have enough bots and people tracking and fixing coding errors that we probably have no need for this template —PC-XT+ 23:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The bots would only fix the ones they recognize, and people would only fix the ones they've been twigged to. This would mark something the people who work on these could work on. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about the bots. If you mean people who can fix the problems must find them, first, I also agree. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia, and if they want the template, I'll support it being kept. If anyone knows any other wikiprojects that may find the template useful, I'd support asking them, as well. —PC-XT+ 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have HTML-cleanup that is similar enough. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2014 (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.