Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 5

< March 4	March 6 >

March 5

Template:Timeline of the Three Stooges

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) 07:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of the Three Stooges (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Orphaned template made redundant by the in-article line-ups table. ShawnIsHere (talk) 10:45, 7 March 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:World Labelled Map

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. I changed the image to an SVG with better colour contrast. Feel free to renominate if you still think it should be deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, uses superseded raster graphic, has improper width/scale —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Superseded by SVG based graphics, colour contrasts don't seem to provide adequate contrast per Wikipedia:Accessability#Color. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a hyperlinked map. What replaced it? The image itself used on the template could be changed to an size-equivalent version, the colours used can also be modified. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Template:Earth Labelled Map, which has far better colour contrast, and there is far less bunching of the labels. If someone wants to take a stab at creating a new one, I would suggest starting from File:BlankMap-World6.svg. Plastikspork (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit to fix issues. There doesn't appear to be any direct substitute. ({{Earth Labelled Map}} is somewhat similar but lacks the delineation of political entities and the links to their articles. The links are overcrowded and the colors should be adjusted, but those are fixable problems. --RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 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:Northcarolinahighschoolsfooter

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) 07:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too broad of a navigation template, and easily made redundant by a category. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a NC resident and former CMS employee, I can say there are many more missing from this already unwieldy template. I count 198 in the cat, and I'm sure there are many others. Are they public? private? special? Where in the state are they? Template is not very useful or informative. See {{Char-Meck Schools}} for a more sensible example. Ruodyssey (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oversized for a navbox, and the connection is too slight. We have Category:High schools in North Carolina, and that is a much better way to link these. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 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:Marvin Gaye timeline

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) 07:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marvin Gaye timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unutilized template and not sure how effective it could be used. Just seems a bit much to include in an article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems this could only be useful on the Marvin Gaye article, but why use it? The article itself is chronological, and adding this huge template would only disrupt its layout and just be plain redundant. Ruodyssey (talk) 06:25, 7 March 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:Online databases

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) 07:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Online databases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no such series. Only one article links to it. One of the 4 links in the template is just a redirect to one of the others. The use of the heading "Header" is completely meaningless. It looks like it never really got beyond the experimental stage. Nurg (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough distinct links for a useful navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 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:Region of Chile

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 to {{Infobox Chilean region}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Region of Chile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). I've developed {{Infobox Chilean region}} to replace this one, since it was only used on one page and all the others were tables. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:13, 5 March 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:Guns N' Roses 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 as redundant to {{Guns N' Roses}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guns N' Roses singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant of {{Guns N' Roses}}. Note that the two have conflicting lists of singles (e.g. "Used to Love Her"), but this is no barrier to deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That song has no page, but the template could redlink it. I did see that "Oh My God" wasn't listed, so I added it. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ruodyssey, the page must be eliminated. The singles are on the main template and do not need another.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 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:Gateshead F.C.

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 to delete Plastikspork (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gateshead F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out of the seven links in this navbox, two of them link to category pages. Therefore, I believe that this navbox links too few pages to be of any use. – Pee Jay 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with most of your nominations PeeJay, but in this instance I think there are enough distinct articles to make the template worthwhile. WFCforLife (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my previous comments, the reason I feel this should be kept is not just over article count, but also because the stadia (x3) and season articles could not reasonably be included in one another. Also worthy of note is that during the previous discussion, all of the other templates nominated received two or more "delete" !votes. WFCforLife (talk) 03:54, 5 March 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:User Independent Azerbaijan and Template:User Unified Azerbaijan

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 Wrong venue. Please take discussions of userboxes to WP:MFD. Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Independent Azerbaijan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:User Unified Azerbaijan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates was created by blocked User:Pournick. I guess these stuff should be put in the user's subpage space not in the template space, although I don't know exactly what rules apply here. I mean are there no rules against creation of such templates (Template:User Independent Kurdistan, Template:User Independent Quebec, Template:User Independent Tibet)?--E235 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I support the independence of any region or group that wants it. However, you′d think people could use one (1) template only and fill the blanks as appropriate. ―AoV² 08:18, 7 March 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.