Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

Template:NewStarMusic

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) 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navbox seems unnecessary; group member pages are redlinks and the main group article is a redirect. Gongshow ^Talk 16:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 16 October 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:ZooDef

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) 02:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

From Wikipedia:Template namespace "Templates should not normally be used as a substitute for usual article content, in the main article namespace." AIRcorn (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning - I created this template so that the definitions in the various zoo lists would remain the same, rather than having to go edit in each of the articles if we expand or change the definition -- in other words, for consistency across articles. This is how I use templates in my day job, but if it's against the rules at WP, I will defer to those rules and just spend more time editing. Since I created the template, I have stated my reasoning but will not vote. Don Lammers (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We typically discourage the use of templates to add boilerplate to articles as it makes the task of editing said content difficult for inexpert editors. Existing transclusions should be substituted onto the pages that they are used on if the content is deemed appropriate. FWIW I'm not sure that this piece of context is really necessary on the various list articles, as it's little more than a dictionary definition of what a zoo is and we can just link zoo if for some reason a reader has ended up on an article about zoos in India and yet doesn't know waht a zoo is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree in this case I have always been slightly uneasy on moving beyond "discourage" to "effectively forbid by removing". Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. If we were to keep this, it should be a subst-only template. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:20, 19 October 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.