Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 24

< May 23	May 25 >

May 24

Module:Carousel

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Carousel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be used by some very active users. I see no reason to make them change how their talk pages work just because another method exists. It doesn't help anything and doesn't save server space. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There would be no benefit from obfuscating a straightforward and extensible module by replacing it with some weird and unmaintainable one-liner. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I use it, and the advantage of it is it can be extended, as John says. Also, why change it? But I'm sure the creator of it, User:RexxS, will be more eloquent on the subject when he gets here. Bishonen | talk 02:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. What a silly reason for nominating something for deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it strikes me as a bit like saying "Pork is an unnecessary sausage, as breakfast can be implemented with beef." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That analogy doesn't work: pork is useful for things other than breakfast. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non sequitur...mmm, sausage. Jonathunder (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created the module as a simple way for multiple users to have a carousel of images that they like. It is customisable and perhaps brings a little joy to those seeing the results. It also serves as a example of how Lua code can be used, and I hope that those who want to learn coding in Lua may find it simple enough to be useful to them. I think it would be a shame to delete it, particularly as a result of the stated reason. Just because we can do something using parser functions and magic words doesn't mean that that way presents any advantages over using Lua. --RexxS (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per reasons above. No need to delete something people find useful and could be an intro to Lua. Deleting would also break many user's talk pages unnecessarily. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2018 (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).

Template:H4

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) 18:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:H4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hr-nt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Hr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:H3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reasons for deletion:

Unused
The templates were blanked over a week ago, and currently do nothing.
All of these templates/modules were created to apply custom styling to elements of a page, such as applying custom coloring/size/fonts for level 4 headings. This may create reader confusion. There was "Near-unanimous consensus" to delete related templates at TFD Style-nt, with extensive objections that inconsistent styling of these page elements was undesirable. It was also noted that any styling improvements can and should be done in a site-wide manner, via proposal at Village Pump.
Template:H3 was speedy deleted G7.

The issue was initially discussed at Manual of Style#Idiosyncratic styling. Alsee (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per prior discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior discussions. But does anyone know where their creator User:Eric Corbett has disappeared to? I hope he's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2018 (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).

Template:Six Flags-lands

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) 18:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Six Flags-lands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless template with only a couple of links, a similar list article is also up for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't see the point of this, considering that information about each 'land' in the parks are available in the articles. As noted on the corresponding list Afd, this is pretty useless micro-organization. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2018 (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).