Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14

Template:Resolved3

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 debate was keep weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resolved3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of {{Resolved}}. This template also uses unicode that does not display in all browsers (as opposed to {{Resolved}} which uses an image). — — Edokter • Talk • 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any occasion when there would be a valid reason to use this. – iridescent 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Isn't this used for resolved problems at AN/I? It seems useful to me; as for the unicode, we can always replace it with something that will show. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, {{Resolved}} is the most commonly used template on AN/I and other boards. — Edokter • Talk • 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as discussed on the help desk talk page, it is easier for loading speed if we use it in the help desk. It is used now by help desk regulars. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It might not be used at AN/I, but the Help Desk had its own discussion and agreed that we should use this template instead of {{resolved}}. It's been used successfully for the past few weeks now. Furthermore, although it's similar to {{resolved}}, it's not the same; it does not use an image. Therefore page loading time is increased. Thirdly, there is no pressing reason to delete it, and doing so would redlink many template links at the help desk and in the archives. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeterSymonds. macy^talk 12:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all... Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my nomination, but this template is broken; the checkmark isn't showing in Internet Epxlorer. We cannot have such templates. Make it work, or delete it. — Edokter • Talk • 13:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am using IE7 and it displays fine for me. Perhaps you should troubleshoot your browser. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't display in IE6, due to an unmapped unicode font being used. — Edokter • Talk • 14:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the uncode article, versions of IE up to version 6 might be able to render code points if explicitly told to use a font that contains them. I dunno what that means, but maybe the code wizards can fix it. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only you Edokter (and a few users) who still use IE. It doesn't work for you, so I suggest you get unicode support, not ask for deletion. Per the above, it is used on the help desk, and the AN has nothing to do with this. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only me... Unicode is wonky no matter how you look at it. However, if incompatilibities can be avoided, they must be avoided. I really don't see the need to force an unmapped unicode character down our throats while there is already a perfectly working template at {{Resolved}}. The "space" argument is a misnomer. — Edokter • Talk • 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it in Firefox 2.0.0.14. All I see is a question mark with the word resolved next to it. Metros (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In principle I agree that having it to save space is a good thing, however I raised the problem of viewing it in some browsers just over a couple of weeks ago, and have not seen an effort to fix this. I don't really understand how difficult the problem is to fix and i'm not sure this is the place to get into that, but I think a fix should be found before using per the Help Desk consensus. If a fix can be found I would keep. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Rambo. Accessibility is important, and while no browser is perfect for Wikipedia, I feel that all reasonable attempts should be made to make the encyclopedia accessable to all, no matter what browser they are using. Thus, I strongly urge a fix be made to the code of the template quickly. We should allow a few user to attempt to fix it before we try to delete it.

I'd also like to apologize if my initial comment sounded to contradict this. I'd assumed that you were having a problem with your browser, not an accessibility barrier. I still wouldn't rule that out, and suggest the nominator be sure the issue is not with his (her?) computer before weighing further about display issues. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode needs to be fixed here on Wikipedia as well, as it is currently a mess. I've made a dirty hack to the template, but I still feel it is redundant to Resolved. — Edokter • Talk • 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that character is too high... enlarging it blows the heitght of the box out of proportions. — Edokter • Talk • 14:34, 16 June 2008 (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:Infobox Havana

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Havana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one place, Havana. It was replaced with infobox settlement. Also it has a redirect that should be deleted. — Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and unnecessary. Possibly speedyable under WP:CSD#T3. Terraxos (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' Unattractive and useless.ÜÖÏËÄ ÄËÏÖÜ (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (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:American Campaign and Service Awards

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Campaign and Service Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template duplicates content on Template:US interservice decorations, Template:US navy department decorations, Template:USAF decorations, Template:USArmy decorations, and Template:USCG decorations; is less complete and lacks the visual appeal and organization of the others. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Working on it won't overcome problems with duplication, unless the other templates get deleted first.ÜÖÏËÄ ÄËÏÖÜ (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2008 (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:Ultima

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 debate was merging {{Ultima-Sidebar}} to {{Ultima}}, then redirecting the former to the latter. I'll update all current transclusions. Will leave any needed content changes to others. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ultima (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Actually a merge/deletion request with {{Ultima-Sidebar}}. Duplicate of content with different layouts. — — MrDolomite • Talk 00:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, obviously. No need for TFD. — CharlotteWebb 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like this needs to be worked out before going to TfD, or just redirecting, like CharlotteWebb suggests. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge {{Ultima-Sidebar}} into {{Ultima}}, remove all article references to the former, and redirect it to the latter. To my knowledge, navigation boxes are much more common than sidebars, and I haven't yet seen any other video game article series that uses one of the latter.
- Additional arguments in favor of keeping {{Ultima}}: it appears to contain links to all Ultima-related articles, which {{Ultima-Sidebar}} doesn't; it is also present itself in all Ultima articles, which {{Ultima-Sidebar}} isn't; none of the main articles (about the video games themselves) can contain {{Ultima-Sidebar}} because the top-right angle is occupied by the mandatory {{Infobox VG}}.
- Arguments in favor of keeping {{Ultima-Sidebar}}: only the artistic quality, especially, the logo. Perhaps integrate the latter into the navbox? --Koveras ^☭ 07:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge {{Ultima-Sidebar}} into {{Ultima}}, based on content and use it makes the most sense.ÜÖÏËÄ ÄËÏÖÜ (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2008 (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.