Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11[edit]

Template:TV Stations Utah[edit]

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) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV Stations Utah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:SLC TV; all of Utah is part of the Salt Lake City market. Blueboy96 21:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Blueboy96. Delete since it is redundant. CKStark (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Against Köppen[edit]

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) 00:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Against Köppen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems like a very odd template that violates WP:NPOV --- why must Wikipedia articles never be "against" the Köppen climate classification, and why do we need an article-space warning box for that? —hike395 (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Campaignbox Pakistan attacks 2001-2009[edit]

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 no consensus to delete, but there is some consensus to reformat the box. No prejudice against renomination at a future date if this is not possible Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Pakistan attacks 2001-2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is full of redlinks and is incredibly cumbersome to navigate. Creates formatting and text overlap errors in the articles it's placed into. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My knowledge of templates is precisely nil, but if there's a way to fix those issues without deletion, I'd say keep. The redlinks could be trimmed, the formatting issues, I don't know. How about having it hide by default? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited the template to reduce red links as suggested by HJ Mitchell. I only kept the links for articles with casualties greater than 40. I plan to create them when I get time. The template looks a lot cleaner now, and hopefully would not give the problems pointed out by Sottolacqua. I have also removed the deletion tag. Feel free to undo the edit if you see it fit. Thanks. Razzsic (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no opinion one way or another on the template, but I've restored the TFD notice. It should not be removed until this discussion is closed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep campaignboxes are useful. Go see Vietnam War for a "worst" example --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, no, the one for the Korean War (about half are red and black links) is really the "worst" more than the Vietnam War. Qajar (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is usefulWikireader41 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It still needs a lot of improvements, currently it is a total mess and difficult to read as well. Managerarc (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should remove and delete more links to non-notable bombing events from this template. We should only keep the attacks that caused high death toll and some investigations and had deep effects on politics. Those bombings that don't have these conditions should be speedy for deletion. Qajar (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_11&oldid=1141876579"