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) 05:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable band without its own article. One member who went on to play in more notable bands and a split album with questionable notability itself are the only directly-related articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't believe this doesn't meet CSD. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 13:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William 00:52, 23 October 2014 (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.

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) 05:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

As advised here, before its function incorporated by ((para)). Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant, after merging functionality if required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 27 October 2014 (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.

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) 03:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 11 transclusions should be replaced, in order to simplify the options available and reduce the maintenance workload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge sidebar option to one of the other templates, then replace and delete. I'd prefer to keep ((Quote)) itself lean. It's used many, many times.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:44, 22 October 2014 (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.

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) 00:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant; labelled as "less efficient than ((imagequote2))." (which itself is nominated for deletion). Has only 24 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with ((imagequote2)) and delete, then move that template to this template's name. Disposition of that second template is independent of this one; this one is clearly redundant with and obsoleted by the other, so should be eliminated, even if the other is eventually deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Update: I'll defer to what ais523 and Martijn Hoekstra are working on; significant progress has been made in the last week resolving the display problems with block quotation and floated images.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with ((imagequote2)), or (more likely) with ((quote)) once we've fixed the relevant bugs in it (there's a current TfD about that). --ais523 05:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Replace with ((quote)), but not before the changes to that template go through that fixes the margin bug in that template (which should be directly after that TfD closes, whatever its outcome). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (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.

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) 01:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google books quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Cite book)), with which the mere 109 transclusions should be replaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacing with ((Cite book|quote=...|...))  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, but replace like this. note the 'text=' parameter is used for highlighting the passage in the book within google books. Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:43, 22 October 2014 (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.

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 deleted, G7. 28bytes (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dab quotes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 20 October 2014 (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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little-used (14 transclusions; none in article-space) wrapper of ((Bq)), as nominated below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is part of the glossary templates Andy's nominated en masse here. Of course it has few transclusions, as it was only created a couple of days ago and hasn't been deployed yet in most places where it would be used (which will be a slow process of finding and reviewing all of the template-structured glossary list articles, which right now are not well-categorized (another fix-it in progress). Even if ((bq)) were deleted (see below), this one, ((gbq)), would need to simply be modified to call another block quotation template with CSS to align it properly inside description (a.k.a. definition or association) lists (those created with underlying <dl><dt>...</dt><dd>...</dd></dl> markup). Ultimately all of the glossary-related formatting should be handled at MediaWiki:Common.css, but there's no hurry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request procedural closure: All the rest of the glossary-related templates were kept, rather speedily (it was an Oct. 22 TfD but has already been closed for some time, due to a WP:SNOWBALL). This part of that template series should be closed with the same result; there's no rationale for it to be treated as not part of that group TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no procedural reason to close. This is a separate nomination, on a separate basis, and stands, independent of the result of that other nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 5 November 2014 (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.

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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (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.

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) 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Block quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Claims to be "an alias of ((Quote))" but is actually an unnecessary wrapper for it. I suggest we SUBST: all instances, then delete it. See example substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that 3001 articles use this template. To subst them all or convert to ((Quote)) would require a significant amount of work or a bot, which could possibly break the syntax and/or quote. KonveyorBelt 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to suppose that that number would case a replacement to "break the syntax and/or quote" - we've often replaced more numerous template instances. The number is also trivial compared to the ~48,000 instances of ((Quote)); which shows a clear community prefence for the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questionable reasoning; we have many templates that are alternatives to more commonly used ones, because "one size" often does not fit all. The very fact that they're alternatives, for particular cases, to more general templates automatically means they'll be used less frequently. You are seem to be proceeding from the false basis that we can only tolerate one template for any given general category of output, and this simply isn't true. That said, I'm a big fan of merging such templates (it's why I wrote ((bq)) and what became ((Compact ToC)), with the express intent that they lead to mergers that reduce the profusion of certain kinds of alternative templates by instead building in parameters for case-by-case customization).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not proceeding from any such basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Asserting that a perception of your rationale isn't accurate, without explaining what your rationale really is, does nothing to dispel that perception. "Your wrong." is rarely helpful, especially in contexts in which "You're wrong, because..." is expected.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure. You're wrong, because I am not proceeding from the false basis that we can only tolerate one template for any given general category of output. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Simply dogging again. You did not provide the needed explanation of what your rational really is, so the perception that you claim is inaccurate remains the only one on the table. Heh. Hopefully we'll figure out how to communicate better at some point, since our template cleanup work often coincides in the same direction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Conducting sexual liaisons in public? Hardly. I note though, that you have confirmed the veracity of my statement, that you were wrong, by striking your original accusation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I conservatively estimate I could subst: about 10 templates a minute manually. If all had to be done manually (for which I see no reason, a bot could be perfectly capable, but that aside), that would mean about 5 manhours. Nothing to cause major alarm or upheaval IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 October 2014‎
• Note that putting this up for discussion just defaced all 3001 of those articles and will waste people's time wondering why far in excess of the value of the discussion. The maximum benefit of the change is so gargantuously trivial that it's not even worth the time for you to read my comment on it, or my vote, which is to retain.Kurt (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain due to the large amount of work in substituting uses and the minimal benefit of it. Also suggest this gets closed sharpish, to avoid disruption to the articles using it. GoldenRing (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "amount of work" is not a reason for retention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed (see also Marijn Hoekstra's comparatively low 5-manhour estimate, above).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow keeping 202.160.16.131 (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC) (and close this real quick)[reply]
  • Note that .131 has !voted again, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain per Kurt – word for word, particularly the bit about "just defaced all 3001 of those articles and will waste people's time wondering why …" JG66 (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain – this seems trivial because after I looked at the "example substitution," I can't tell the difference. Why all this extra work and what's the pay-off? - Christian Roess (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being able to tell the difference is evidence of the redundancy. Thank you for confirming. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It's redundant to a better-designed template, which is a commonly successful argument at TfD. Writing a script to replace all instances of ((blockquote)) with ((quote)) is not particularly difficult on a technical level and would not break the syntax. The TfD notification is hardly "defacement".—S Marshall T/C 13:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITYM ((block quote)) (note space). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do indeed. Thank you for quibbling that point.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reduntant template with a strange syntax (must add extra content that doesn't appear on the page.) Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Samuel and Kurt (ironically). Why don't we remove the template now so we can get rid of the TfD ad sooner? Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kurt said that removing this template would deface 3001 articles 202.160.16.131 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he did not - and no, it would not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A cursory examination of both suggests that it was forked from an earlier version of ((quote)) with less functionality. As it stands, I cannot conceive of anything that can be done with ((block quote)) that can't be done with ((quote)) and additional parameters. I think that, in the majority of cases, the amount of time it takes to adapt syntax to fit this is almost certainly longer than the amount of time it takes to add some indentation to a ((quote)) transclusion. Jacob Gotts (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Go look at Lou Gehrig#"The Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth" speech. Gah. - Dravecky (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain gives value to improtant quotes without giving it too much attentioin--Misconceptions2 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Misconceptions2: Please explain how ((Quote)) does not give the same value? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am talking about the "<blockquote>" tag, is this not what discussion is about?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; this is about a template called "Block quote" (with a space), not the HTML element. There are links to the templatea at the top of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obsolete and redundant —PC-XT+ 06:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Every trivial TfD is way off. Keep - 3001 articles would be ruined if you do this 202.160.16.131 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 3001 ARTICLES![reply]

What nonsense, .131 How would replacing:

Lorem ipsum

with

Lorem ipsum

ruin any article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the anon means the thousands of TfD notices appearing all over articles, a concern also raised by JG66. With templates like this, it's generally best to noinclude the TfD notice, and if it's a really widely used one, "advertise" the TfD some other way, e.g. at Village pump.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no reason to not use parameters for special cases. As per usual, if difficulty in replacing templates were an overriding concerning, most (no) templates would ever be replaced. Int21h (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I saw it on the Trotsky article and followed a link here. Having read about ((Quote)), I do not see what the issue is with getting rid of it. Just a ditto to what Andy Mabbett says. If no bot is available to perform the task, I am happy to be a member of any team that goes through replacing the ((Block quote))s manually before they are terminated. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Revert Template Now Adding ugly spam to thousands of pages is unnecessary. Revert back to the no-message template ASAP; then continue review, and if consensus is reached that it's worth deleting, develop appropriate bot and change without notification. 80.229.231.194 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to ((Quote)); it just needs parameters to output similar display as an option.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to reduce complexity. Identical templates that forward to another template are quite useless. I also completely and strongly reject and condemn any argument along the lines of "keep, because right now there is a TfD notice transcluded into article space". Keeping this template would do exactly nothing to fix that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reach consensus speedily and Move bot-worthy discussions out of user space per Kurt. You are currently defacing 3001 articles. Vandalism on this scale should be discouraged. Doug (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transclusion of TfD notices in articles is not a speedy deletion criterion. Nothing under discussion here appears to have anything to do with User: namespace, and bots don't discuss anything. Finally, routine TfD notices are not WP:VANDALISM, and casting them as such is a WP:CIVIL problem at the very least.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the "redundant to a better-designed template" argument. Since no valid argument ("it's too hard" and "X articles use it" are beyond weak) has been advanced to keep this, there may be snow in the forecast, allowing the work to begin now. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of this straw poll is that the Delete has it. In addition, the majority of those voting in favour of Retain appear to be voting this way solely on the incorrect assumption that it would lead to speedy resolution, for example Kurt. Propose Speedy closure to limit impact on userspace. Propose Eliminate TfD templates in userspace in order to avoid ignorant drive-by voting such as mine. Doug (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Dhatfield is !voting twice (see one major bullet-point above the one these are responses to). Also: Templates for discussion is not straw-polling but consensus-building discussion. The snowball principle and the criteria for speedy deletion are not equivalent, and a snowball isn't indicated here anyway (there are "merge" & "retain" !votes non-trivial rationales). TfDs can run for quite some time, not infrequently reversing their initial trends. Though I doubt that's likely in this case, merging some features of the one template into the other, however, remains a reasonable option, and might even happen before the TfD closes. Transclusion of TfD notices in articles is not a speedy delete (or keep) criterion, either; where it's seen as undesirable, the fix is to <noinclude>...</noinclude> the TfD notice after it has been sufficiently "advertised", as I've done in this case. More than a day of transclusion of frequently-used templates tends to produce nothing but angry comments (and replies to them) responding to the transclusion more that to the TfD-valid issues being raised about the template in question. This mires TfD in noise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned by several people, there is simply no reason for this to exist. It achieves nothing other than annoying redundancy. RoflCopter404 (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever you decide, please do it soon. Over 3000 articles are currently affected by the TFD notification, making the pages look defaced. I just came here from a messed-up article. 67.1.100.49 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Get a move on, people. WP is currently littered with these crappy notices, and it makes the whole effort look poor. Get it sorted. Better yet, find a better way of flagging templates in future, so articles don't get trashed. johantheghost (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Int21h (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a bot replacement should be easy, I just looked at a few. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and redirect I can't see a good reason to have a wrapper for ((quote)) whose arguments are numbered, idiosyncratically, 1, 4, and 5. The name is possibly worth keeping as a plausible redirect, though. Incidentally, voting "keep" on the basis that the TfD nomination should have been less disruptive to pages is a little strange, as both would have the same effect on the pages affected (i.e. the notice would disappear at the same time either way). --ais523 05:28, 30 October 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 01:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quote2col (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 12 article-space transclusions should be replaced. Uses table markup, with poor accessibility, for layout instead of proper quotation markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the replacement? --  Gadget850 ^talk 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of a number of options, for example see this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Scout Promise then delete. --  Gadget850 ^talk 11:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gadget850.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:56, 22 October 2014 (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.

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) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multilingual quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other quote templates, with one of which the mere 33 transclusions should be replaced. Uses table markup, with poor accessibility, for layout instead of proper quotation markup. (Many of the non-English quotations are unnecessary and may be removed.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacing with ((Quote)) and proper language markup. Nom's objection to specific content on specific articles has nothing to do with TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But I know how to use this one! If, as you seem to be saying, ((Quote)) can do the same thing, then please include how to do so in that template's documentation before you delete the one that I know how to use. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, ((Quote)) can't do what ((Multilingual quote)) does. (Also, I think I've only used it in order to quote primary documents in both the original language and translation. That seems the honest thing to do with such sources and not unnecessary at all) Furius (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Example: @Furius: The simplest solution is ((quote|''((lang|es|Quotación no en inglés.'')) )) ((quote|'Quotation not in English.'))  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that's really helpful :). They're still somewhat different however:

[Quotación no en inglés.] Error: ((Lang)): text has italic markup (help)

'Quotation not in English.'

— Author

((multilingual quote |Quotation not in English. |Author |Quotación no en inglés |language=es))

I quite like the side-by-side effect of multilingual quote and the way it displays the languages above the quotations - can that also be replicated? (Sorry for bothering you further) Furius (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((columns|width=auto
| col1 = ((quote|((lang-en|Quotation not in English.))|Author))
| col2 = ((quote|((lang-es|Quotación no en inglés))))
))

is an approximation. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2014 (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.