Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 31

< December 30	January 1 >

December 31

Template:Coptic Popes

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coptic Popes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Coptic Popes with Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria.
All the Popes of Alexandria listed at Template:Coptic Popes are also listed at Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria, just not vice versa. Since the latter template is therefore a perfect superset of the former, it is redundant for them to exist as separate templates. However, the post-merger Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria should probably adopt the color scheme and right-hand illustration previously seen at Template:Coptic Popes. This would make the merged template fully analogous to Template:Popes, which is appropriate because both concern offices necessarily held by Bishops. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per nom. I see the color scheme has already been changed. St Anselm (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (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:Activision Extreme Sports

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) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Activision Extreme Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't know if any of the CSD criteria apply, so I'm TfDing. This template is pretty much a duplicate of Template:Tony Hawk games with the other games section being moved from the aforementioned template. Zappa O Mati 04:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Qazplmoknwsx (talk) 8:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? No rationale given for the !vote. Zappa O Mati 21:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if anything i would call for the tony hawk series to be Merged into this template, as a collapsed section. --Dan027 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear these games share a common branding from Activision and the link between them is tenuous at best. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete the grouping appears to be WP:OR per Jtalledo. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2013 (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:Exile on Main St.

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) 05:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exile on Main St. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation and functionality already exists with the template, {{Exile on Main St. tracks}}, and would be used in the same exact articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as redundant per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Now redundant. Zappa O Mati 16:52, 6 January 2013 (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:Start-Ups: Silicon 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, the template does not appear to link very many articles that are not already well linked. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start-Ups: Silicon Valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The series is cancelled, and this template isn't being used anywhere else. What's the point? Recollected (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template is a navigation box used to navigate between related articles; the template's "what links here" points out the template is already transcluded in those related articles, so it serves its purpose. Having a show canceled doesn't remove its notability. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 09:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Navbox for a notable TV show. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough articles to need a navbox for, after removing bravo and silicon valley, which are not appropriate for a navbox. also, stars of shows dont get to be in navboxes, only writers/directors/producers, per numerous discussions (i know, not having william shatner in a star trek navbox seems crazy, but once you allow one, where do you stop?) Aside to nominator: let this discussion come to a natural conclusion, even if its a "snow keep", and dont remove the discussion manually, let an admin decide then archive it properly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the articles are already well connected, so no need for a navigation box here. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2013 (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:CWNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CWNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with Template:CWNetwork Shows; same info in both places. Not necessary to have two separate templates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much content do not need to split--Qa003qa003 (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The split is so that all five networks have the same template type for current shows.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you feel the other is redundant? One of them needs to go, since the same information is presented on two different templates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that would be the most consistent thing in relation to the other networks. However, since this network is so new the reason for deleting the full listing template is not as strong as it is with the networks that have been around for decades. However, many other networks have complete listings. Maybe this should be presented to WP:TV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Template:CWNetwork Shows. I'm from WP:TV and this is redundant. Merge "Primetime" and "Daytime" in and put "Upcoming" as Group 3. — ^Wylie_Coyote 16:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the info is already on the other template, so there's no merging necessary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not true. This one is embedded in the other one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - My mistake. I just merged the info now. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge, the appearance of redundancy was due to the fact that one was transcluding the other. a merger solves the problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge for the reasons stated above. We do not need two templates giving the same information. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 16:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge for the reasons stated above.Lpmfx (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (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.

TV channel footer templates

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) 00:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTVNetwork Shows footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Syfy Shows footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary and strange templates that merely served as links to Template:MTVNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) and Template:Syfy Shows (current and upcoming) at the bottoms of those same templates. I've since removed them from usage, since they were merely self-referential and present on only those other templates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CWNetwork Shows footer I learned this.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom's description. Very unnecessary and busies up the original template which had been fixed. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:53, 3 January 2013 (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:Jefferson Republican Party/meta/shortname

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) 05:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jefferson Republican Party/meta/shortname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, just three words. The Jefferson Republican Party was judged to be not notable at this AFD discussion for the article on the party. I could probably just speedy this but figured I'd take the cautious route. Delete. delldot ∇. 01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per prior consensus concerning unused meta politics templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD:T3. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:22, 7 January 2013 (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:Jefferson Republican Party/meta/color

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) 05:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jefferson Republican Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, duplicated elsewhere. The Jefferson Republican Party was judged to be not notable at this AFD discussion for the article on the party. Delete. delldot ∇. 01:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I probably should have just speedied these as subpages of a nonexistent template. But now that these are here I guess I'll leave them. delldot ∇. 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD:T3. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:22, 7 January 2013 (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.