< April 5 April 7 >

April 6

Template:Extinct Germanic languages

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extinct Germanic languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Template:Germanic philology. — Ptcamn (talk) 05:48, 6 April 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:3dglasses

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. Will replace with 3d glasses. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3dglasses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Permanent banner with no useful information. According to the Wikipedia:No 3D illustrations guidelines, 3D images should not be used in articles. And if used, the ((3d glasses)) template does a better job informing the reader about the existance of 3D images. Delete. — Kildor (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although your proposal is a great improvement, I cannot see what good it makes to have such an icon at the top of the article. Only a couple of pages (like Anaglyph image) should have any inline 3D images. And on those pages, it makes more sense to have the icon next to the images (using the other template, ((3d glasses))) instead of at the top of the page. --Kildor (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Don't you think that an icon next to the image is a better way to inform the reader of the existence of such images? An icon at the top corner is hardly noticeable, and duplicates the information provided by the other template ((3d glasses)). --Kildor (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think it's fair for you to speak for everyone. Yes, in fact, I do think that an icon next to the picture is a better idea. But I still like the concept of having something at the top of the page to warn the reader that the images exist below. --Superpika66 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for the guideline No 3D illustrations, is due to the low image quality; not due to any danger that the reader needs to be "warned" against. Hence, this template is redundant and superfluous to the small inline icon version, ((3d glasses)). – Quiddity (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry. Obviously, I cannot speak for everyone. The "no" above was my own opinion and nothing else. --Kildor (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology accepted. So I guess the general concensus is "Delete", huh? --Superpika66 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 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:ConfirmationOTRS

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 wrong venue. Confusing though they may be, we still need the process and to record verification and release, so unless and until a new process and set of templates is ready, we can't really do without these. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our current OTRS templates are a little confusing...we have at least four (listed above) when we could probably get by with just one (it could cover both images and text by using the term "work"). The template ((ConfirmationImageOTRS)) doesn't translate over to the Commons when transwiki'ing images using CommonsHelper. Recommend consolidating all of the above templates into ((PermissionOTRS)) (this is the template used by Commons - see Commons:Template:PermissionOTRS.) Kelly hi! 04:14, 6 April 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.