Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

January 12

Template:Pink Friday: The Pinkprint tracks

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) 04:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pink Friday: The Pinkprint tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

does not meet WP:NMUSIC (see "Unreleased material") Tgeairn (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per {{db-g8}}. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No reliable sources and generally not useful. Looks to be an end run around creating articles; user has created a number of inappropriate articles for alleged singles, but those contained enough fabricated information that they could be speedy deleted under CSD G3. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Another one of this user's articles was just CSDed. Template serves no purpose whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless and hardly a template. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:07, 19 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:Belg2

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) 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belg2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

generally redundant to {{ill2}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was created as a variant to {{ill2}} -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:47, 14 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:Afd-teahouse

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 generally redundant in function to {{not a ballot}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afd-teahouse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think that this template (intended to be displayed atop AfDs) is particularly helpful for new editors participating in AfDs. The Wikipedia:Teahouse page it links contains no immediately apparent advice particularly related to the deletion process. While the Teahouse approach looks worthwhile, if perhaps a bit redundant to other help venues, the template should be omitted as visual clutter. Sandstein 10:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm busy this weekend so I'll do a full response later, but two quick points I should make are a) did you consider merging / redirecting with Template:Not a ballot first (being that deletion is, after all, a last resort) and b) newbie SPAs just cause annoyance all round (the newbies because their article still gets deleted, the regulars because the arguments don't cite any policies) without solving any problems (such as improving an article so it doesn't get deleted). If this isn't the solution, what is? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merger is not necessary; the Teahouse can simply be mentioned in {{Not a ballot}}. I don't know whether that's useful, but it can be done independently from this deletion. And a redirect makes little sense because there are very few transclusions. Sandstein 16:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about cleanup; the template itself is superfluous. Sandstein 16:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but consider adding a link in {{not a ballot}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've discussed that a redirect is pointless, fair enough, but you haven't commented on the wider picture of trying to come up with a better solution than drive by {{spa}} biting. Claims about being "superfluous" and "few transclusions" are somewhat premature as the template has only been around for a few days and used on two AfDs (one of which had the template removed by the nominator). FWIW had the template previously existed, I would have used it on this, this, this and this. And if another newbie not signing their posts turns up on this AfD, I'd probably use it there too. From my experiences, newbies don't know anything about relevant policies when handling an AfD, so a prominent "New here? Click on this" button is the most effective way of introducing them to them. Without running this on more AfDs, it's hard to say one way or the other whether or not the template works, and I'd prefer to revisit this TfD in about six months time, when we can judge its effectiveness. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we are concerned about giving newbies links and help to make AFD easier, then putting such information in the headers of AFD discussions would be far more useful than a template that is really just a promotion for the Teahouse. Reso lute 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well-meaning, but if all the other links and help text that we provide during the AfD process doesn't persuade people not to post inappropriate comments at AfD then this one won't either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 15 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:List of shopping malls in Iloilo

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) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of shopping malls in Iloilo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three working links plus three links to disambig pages which offer no related articles. This navbox is a redlink farm and linked articles are not automatically suitable for inclusion. Per WP:NAVBOX, redlinks should be avoided AND a navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "see also". C 679 07:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Navigates essentially nothing. And, as per nom above. Xeltran (talk) 10:55, 19 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:Social 50 number-one acts

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) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Social 50 number-one acts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With the four lists linked in this template merged to create one (List of Billboard Social 50 number-one acts), this template is not necessary. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, a much needed consolidation. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 190.199.79.62 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not make any sense anymore. Ilikeriri (talk) 17:10, 13 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:Cinemascape rating

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) 04:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinemascape rating (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

was only being used in one article (Postcard (film)). similar templates have been deleted (e.g., Christgau). Frietjes (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created the template and used it on some articles but then removed it after I realised that Cinemascape ratings should not be used in film articles, it is a user-generated content site of reviews by the general public, like rotten tomatoes viewer ratings. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7; the template creator has requested deletion above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 16 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:Categorised listing of engineering colleges in Kerala

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) 04:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Categorised listing of engineering colleges in Kerala (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

blanked as redundant to categories, should be either expanded or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 01:14, 12 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:ASTm

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 moved to userspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

userfy? Frietjes (talk) 00:56, 12 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.