Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

February 12

Template:The extraterrestrial

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) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The extraterrestrial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The title is not exactly meaningful, I wondered at first if it was a book or film. It also encompasses far too much. - should a template just be a bundle of 4 other templates, with so much not directly related? Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused collection of very loosely related navboxes. {{UFOs}} are commonly presumed to be extraterrestrial, but {{Science fiction}} and {{Conspiracy theories}} cover a lot that is not otherworldly. No reason for these to be jammed together in this way. --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 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:Coachella Valley

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) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coachella Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not used and we already have the Inland Empire Template, which includes this area. House1090 (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused. Anna Lincoln 08:54, 12 February 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:El Centro Metropolitan Area

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 Speedy delete per author request Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:El Centro Metropolitan Area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have the Imperial County template we don't need this one, just like the El Centro metropolitan area article (which is also up for deletion). For those who don't know, the El Centro metropolitan area is all of Imperial County, if it wasn't I would have not nominated it. I just feel we don't need to templates about the same exact thing/area (Imperial County). House1090 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Template should not be deleted unless the article is deleted since they are cohesive. Also the template includes only the incorporated cities and is different from the Imperial County template. The template is also for the second most important metropolitan area in the largest economic region (Southern Border), in terms of diversity, in the state. Again, the template should not be deleted unless the article is deleted as they are cohesive. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoCal L.A. source please. So the Imperial County template includes all the municipalities and not just the incorporated areas, now with more reasons to delete the template. Now why do we need two templates about the same area? We do not need twin templates and articles. The El Centro metro is not the 2nd most important metropolitan area in the state, I did not even know it existed, I thought it was apart of the San Diego metro. Lastly I think a metro with a population of less than 190,000 people is not one of the largest in the state as you stated above. House1090 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i forgot to put Southern Border, the state defines it so, check the article, it has the source. Though i did not say the metropolitan area was the most important economic region in the state, but that it was the second most important metropolitan area in the largest economic region of the state (in terms of diversity) which of itself was not an incorrect statement. Also how is the Imperial Valley, agricultural center ofSouthern California, not important? Forgive me for not having sources but the articles do. Again the template should not be deleted unless the article is deleted as they are cohesive. SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The El Centro metro article has been redirected to Imperial County, so this tempate should be deleted. We have the Imperial County template. House1090 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{Imperial County, California}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent article has been deleted. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:37, 19 February 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.