Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 28



Template:Tilt

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC) I can see no conceivable legitimate use for this template; even in articles about html attributes we use screenshotted images of formatting rather than actually formatting in the readers' browsers, since the output from varies by browser (and in the case of this particular output, doesn't function at all in many common browsers). &#8209; Iridescent 18:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Tilt


 * Maybe userfy? I can see possible (though annoying) uses for this in userspace. Otherwise, deletion seems reasonable. Eman  235 / talk  20:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - all that needs to be understood is not to use this template in the mainspace.   Ups and Downs 1234  (🗨) (My Contribs) 02:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete; there's no legitimate use for this attribute, and indeed I think we should treat its use as disruptive (with the possible exception of April Fools' Day). ansh 666 21:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if only used in userspace, there are WP:ACCESS issues here. Aiken D 08:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete, or move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Tilting the table of contents on a user page may be amusing, but it is not at all funny when copied to other pages. A template to simplify the process provides no benefit to the encyclopedia and sends the wrong message to naive editors who might think that Wikipedia is a great place to muck around. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I created this to make it easier to tilt content. And no, I was not the first user to use the tilt CSS rule.  User:EEng has a tilted TOC on his user page, but not his talk page.  Either keep the template, or delete it and disallow the CSS rules.    Ups and Downs 1234  (🗨) (My Contribs) 15:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me. I got the idea from 's userpage here: . He's a very bad influence on other editors.  E Eng  16:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes ok, I admit I stole it from clogipedia for use on windmill articles. I'd say Keep, as per User:UpsandDowns1234, even though WP:ACCESS issues may be only partly mitigated by zoom. We certainly don't want any "mucking around". Not on your Nellie. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (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).

Template:Public universities in Malaysia

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete and move Universities in Malaysia to this title. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) this template was unnecessarily created by a move from "universities in Malaysia" I moved it back to its original name. Then this User blanked it. The template is now redundant LibStar (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Public universities in Malaysia
 * delete, housekeeping, then move universities in Malaysia back to this title. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G6. Aiken D 14:40, 30 April 2017 (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).

Progress Wrestling

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC) These championships have been deleted at Articles for deletion/Progress World Cup for not being notable. The subjects aren't notable enough to be useful templates. LM2000 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Progress World Championship
 * Progress Tag Team Championship
 * Progress Atlas Championship


 * Delete all, even with the first one I can't see the templates being useful. Aiken D 14:43, 30 April 2017 (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).

Template:Australian Senators/fam

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was keep, template is being used Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC) This is purely a formatting template, not content. Is an unused subtemplate. Is orphaned. Family First Party is defunct so this formatting template is completely superfluous. Also very easy to recreate. Donama (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Australian Senators/fam
 * keep, the template is used. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2017 (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).

Template:Next Australian Senators

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Orphaned. Manifestly outdated. Can't see what value is served. Contains no actual content not already covered on Wikipedia. Donama (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Next Australian Senators
 * delete  serves no value with zero entries. LibStar (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete empty and serves no purpose currently, and can't see any future use. Aiken D 14:44, 30 April 2017 (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).