Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 29

< May 28	May 30 >

May 29

Template:Ohio Stadium Concerts

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) 02:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ohio Stadium Concerts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox created without a single link to list some of the concerts held at Ohio Stadium. None of these concerts are notable by themselves, and such a navbox scheme would really clutter the tour pages if included there. Information now included directly in article and template is unused. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No link, mere clutter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCopter (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arsenikk is right: Every single datum is located in Ohio Stadium#concerts. This is a reformat of information and this is not what templates are used for.Curb Chain (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. mabdul 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk) 23:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Well meaning, perhaps, but not a good idea. Reso lute 01:46, 4 June 2011 (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:Dragon Prince place

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) 02:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dragon Prince place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. I've been merging the related articles (some were deleted this winter) into a list, which does not need a template to go with it. Izno (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. mabdul 18:28, 2 June 2011 (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:Elliott Smith Vertical

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) 02:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elliott Smith Vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Elliott Smith}}. A prior TfD in January had only 3 participants, and I believe the consensus was misread: the only one who argued to keep was the creator, on the basis of "I think vertical templates are easier to navigate". Why do we need a second navbox for this artist, and why should it be in a different format from the standard navbox that all other articles use? This should be deleted. IllaZilla (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is already a horizontal and collapsible Elliot Smith template. There are already infoboxes for albums, songs and artists that will go on every conceivable page. This is unnecessary and visually confusing.--SabreBD (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template is very handsome. The creator's stated intention was to boldly improve on the current (ugly, practical) navboxes and see if it catches on in other musician articles. I would prefer this navbox, but right-aligned templates tend to collide with images and other standard infoboxes (such at Template:Infobox musical artist), so this would need more consideration (placement standards at least) to be practical.
If this box is kept, relevant articles should be limited to exactly one navbox, not both {{Elliott Smith Vertical}} and {{Elliott Smith}}. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's "handsome" is a matter of taste and personal preference. The purpose of a navbox is to facilitate inter-article navigation, not to decorate articles. Part of that utility is a consistent look and navigation system, which is more practical when we're talking about a type of template (musical artist navbox) that's used across hundreds of thousands of articles. Personally I don't think that "simple" and "practical" equate to "ugly", my feeling is that utility is preferable to decor (imagine trying to create a consistent look for this type of navbox for the tens of thousands of musical artists we cover). Boldness is fine, but I think that if a significant number of editors have grievances with the prevailing system for musical artist navboxes then it ought to be brought up at WT:WPMU for community discussion. Even if this is a test case, the template is over 2 years old so it doesn't look like the idea's caught on over the prevailing system. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The horizontal template, which is the more conventional type of template, makes this one redundant. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopedia not a Smith's pr machine Gnevin (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral template:elliott smith vertical does not have as many links as template:elliot smith, adding all the links on template:elliot smith onto template:elliot smith vertical may occupy too much space on template:elliot smith vertical.Curb Chain (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone had the idea of "pretty-ing up" artist infoboxes this may be a way to start, but not as a navbox added onto multiple pages that have their own infoboxes as well. {{Elliott Smith}} serves its purpose. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (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:Puddle of Mudd list of songs row

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. Feel free to nominate the Beatles template in a separate discussion since the author of that template has not been notified. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Puddle of Mudd list of songs row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion, not necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary, could be done far easier using a table in the actual article. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are to delete this template, delete {{The Beatles list of songs row}} and any other such templates as well.Curb Chain (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2011 (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:19CBritChildrensLiterature

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) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:19CBritChildrensLiterature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three lists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the goal of this template is better served with the category. -- Selket ^Talk 19:14, 1 June 2011 (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.