Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

Template:Appetite for Destruction

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Appetite for Destruction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Every single article in this template is already linkable from Template:Guns N' Roses, also contained in each of these articles. Redundant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, completely redundant to {{Guns N' Roses}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:26, 2 February 2012 (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:Come On Over (album)

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Come On Over (album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another album template that is just redundant to {{Shania Twain singles}} and {{Shania Twain}} or easily navigable from Come On Over (Shania Twain album). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2012 (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:HKDistrict and Template:Wan Chai District

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Wan Chai District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are redundant to a better-designed template such as Template:Geographic location, and it resembles a WP:SBS. T@ναταΓ (discuss–?) 20:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 31 January 2012 (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:Timeless Miracle

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeless Miracle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox for a band that has only three wiki articles. Not everything needs a navbox. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 articles as one is a redirect. All easily navigable from main article anyway. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not enough (current or likely) Wiki articles in my view to warrant this template - WP:NENAN. Gongshow ^Talk 00:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no chance that they will release any new album since their site is down and no updates on myspace since over 2 years. mabdul 12:34, 3 February 2012 (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:R.E.B.E.L.

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) 02:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R.E.B.E.L. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all red links Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even used and band doesn't even have an article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused template that serves no purpose. Gongshow ^Talk 00:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all related articles were deleted or userfied. mabdul 13:05, 3 February 2012 (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:Portuguese royal houses

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) 02:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portuguese royal houses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Repeats content that is covered in Template: Portuguese Monarchy Topics - dwc lr (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. mabdul 12:46, 3 February 2012 (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:Jpg/right/thumb/Manjunath.hamsa

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 Userfy. WOSlinker (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jpg/right/thumb/Manjunath.hamsa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This should probably be userfied, or deleted. I don't see the point of having this template when regular formatting would be enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication to {{user:Manjunath.hamsa/thumb}} or the like and adjustment of its sole transclusion should be wholly uncontroversial here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as Speedy userfy? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:18, 1 February 2012 (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:Saskatchewan Highways

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 move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Saskatchewan/Template:Saskatchewan Highways Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saskatchewan Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too much garbage included in the substitution, unmaintained, outdated. The idea isn't bad but I think it would better served with a project page than template.Svgalbertian (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

! is all I have to say at the moment. Waiting for others to comment. --Rs chen 7754 07:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice to the Canada Highways group, as this is a substitution template, and may have quite a lot of use for the members thereof. My gut reaction is to keep, until we can get some input from that group that this template is too much of a mess for them to use, so I guess I'm a ~~provisional keep~~. No doubt this template needs some tender loving care, if it's going to stick around, however. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like move to project space is the answer here. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I concur with Rschen, but I don't see a point in keeping this around. The substitution doesn't even work! Imzadi 1979 → 07:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that it's a template for building Saskatchewan Highway articles, so you subst in the template, then just fill out all the fields after the fact. It's kind of a neat idea, and if it works for the people that write those articles, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be kept around for the people who use it. I'd kind of like to have something like that around for the Writing Systems wikiproject. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project space. No reason it can't be a subpage of the saskatchewan subproject, where those members can make use of it in the same manner (or fix it if that's what it needs) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move I started this template quite some time ago, when I was more active on wikipedia. It served very well to make highway articles as discussed above, one just needed to fill in the particulars for the new highway and many useful links, and formatting is there to provide a guideline as to important notes or fields of information to include. I think it would also be useful from project space, or it could be in my sandbox if no one else wishes to use it. I got the idea from the old biography and cities and towns templates but I am not sure that they are around any longer either. If anyone wishes to mend it that is fine, I am not sure if anyone else used it or not, but it was understandable to me at the time. The other thing I used it for was to keep track of SK Hwy article discussions which is why it says Do Not do certain things which had been done previously...there had been talks about Hwy articles, and to keep future articles in line with discussions, I made notes in the template..things to do...things not to do...I did put it in my sandbox at Sk Hwy template just in case anyone does not want it, and if I start up on wikipedia again as it was quite intriguing to do the highway articles. As far as even myself re-using it I would want to check the links provided as I know the Sk govt changes their website every election and one must check what remains the same and what changes - and that is where the Minsitry of Highways has their website which is some of the info for sure. I had made articles for most of the main arteries in the province, and wished to get more information/photos of the secondary highways before going further...and there was not as much to write about those either....without more study....User:SriMesh|SriMesh]] | talk 00:30, 2 February 2012 (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.