Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

August 8

Template:Citation needed - Kent

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. —fetch ·comms 00:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed - Kent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{citation needed}}. If WikiProject Kent needs to find articles with fact issues, then CatScan is the better tool.[1]

Note: if deleted, then Category:WikiProject Kent Citation needed needs to be deleted. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blimey, imagine if every WikiProject had one of these. Agree that CatScan is a more effective tool, but if WP:KENT feel it necessary to populate their own category they should do so using their banner template. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC78. This sort of duplication is really unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 10:31, 9 August 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:Promo singles

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. —fetch ·comms 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promo singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Relatively recent fork of {{singles}}, the only difference here is that the text "Singles" has been changed to "Promo singles". I'm inclined to regard such information as peripheral and see this template as adding unnecessary clutter to the main album infobox. On the other hand, I don't see why {{singles}} couldn't adequately be used in any situations where the information was deemed relevant. Either way, I don't see a genuine need for this template. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant; add a "type" parameter or such like to the parent box if needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Andy on this one. Add the parameter rather than create a whole new template. Imzadi 1979 → 10:31, 9 August 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:Category:Continents

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 as redundant. JPG-GR (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category:Continents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Seems to be a copy of Template:Category Continents which is also up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of a redundant template. Airplaneman ✈ 23:59, 12 August 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:Category Continents

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category Continents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Redundant to the category system. Only used on categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 23:58, 12 August 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:Infobox Polish noble

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. —fetch ·comms 01:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Polish noble (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, Template:Infobox Nobility can be used - will request that a CoA field be implemented into Infobox nobility. Connormah^talk 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, I'm surprised CoA is missing from that. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the missing parameter to the "master" template. Imzadi 1979 → 10:31, 9 August 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:Infobox Polish monarch

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. —fetch ·comms 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Polish monarch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox royalty Connormah^talk 02:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The handling of consorts is different, but not necessarily better. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DISAGREE, should stay as example of notable bearer. Wojgniew (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subjects of the articles that use this template have no bearing on the redundancy of the template to another. If the general template can perform the same function as well or better, the redundancy should be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 10 August 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.