Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 25

August 25

Template:Angelina Jolie sidebar

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) 21:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Angelina Jolie sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete per the February 17 AfD, where 14 templates used in the same way for other actors were deleted. Nymf (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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:Safran

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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Template:SMA Engines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Safran with Template:SMA Engines.
Template:SMA Engines has only two valid links. Jax 0677 (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose one is a company/business nav box and the other is a product navbox so not the same, number of links is not really a valid argument for merging different types of navboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - these templates are very different. One is a collection of companies, while the other is a list of engines. They are designed to go on different pages so there is no overlap. As was established by consensus here and here there is no minimum limit on how many bluelinks a nav box can have to be of value. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Two different navboxes for two different purposes. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose merge - Different navboxes for different uses. Two links can, in fact, make a valid navbox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment — Similar merges have happened, but in this case, there is little to no overlap, meaning it would make all the navboxes larger with little benefit. If they were merged, then expanded in the future, I would say to split them. On the other hand, for now, it's only a few links. —PC-XT+ 18:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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:US 68

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) 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:US 68 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN. It only has three linked items (US 68, US 168, Bannered routes of U.S. Route 68), which isn't enough to sustain a separate navbox. Imzadi 1979 → 02:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  @Op47: So what exactly is your deletion rationale? TCN7JM 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• delete, appears to only link two articles, since the US 168 link is a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NENAN is not reccomended as a deletion rationaile, and three links is, in fact, quite enough for a seperate navbox. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  Most times I've seen navboxes for 3 articles is for FTs and GTs mainly, so, it could be done if someone wanted to GT them, I'd support it, but otherwise, I'm going to neutral based on other opinions.Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 00:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Too few items for a navbox. Dough4872 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete – It is my opinion that three links is too few for a navbox and that this should be deleted. TCN7JM 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete — The US 168 link redirects to another article and the bannered routes list, which was created 2 days ago, could easily be merged into the main article. In fact, I may do that myself.  VC  00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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:Tube Bar Albums

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) 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tube Bar Albums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful. All self referencing links to promotional pages which are mostly deleted already. SpyMagician (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Unused train/tram 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) 21:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The templates listed above are all unused. However, as far as I can tell, the templates are all correct and hence potentially could be used. The templates were all created by User:Appletreer who is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, and hence are possibly eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5 (?), but I thought it didn't make sense to speedily delete them if there were possibly useful. Hence this nomination to try to determine whether or not they are useful, and whether they should be kept or deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry or not, many of these can be useful. Unfortunately, a large number of them have been created for station articles that haven't been created yet, and one is for a station article that's badly written. My only hope is that someone will either write or rewrite the articles they were intended for, because I'd hate to see them all go. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTD (talk • contribs)

• delete any that are unused. we can trivially recreate them if necessary. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If we have all the information right, sure. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

when a template is deleted, the history is still visible to admins, so recreation would be trivial. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete those unused. As for sockpuppetry: WP:G5 would have done the job without problem already (as was done for Template:Mecca Metro color for the same sockpuppet). No reason to honor an dishonest editor. As for keeping unused templates: no need, you can ask anyone anytime anyplace to (re-)create one and you'll be helped. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete unused ones —PC-XT+ 04:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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.