Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 14

< February 13	February 15 >

February 14

Template:Churches in Bristol

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_23#Template:Churches_in_Bristol Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 speedy procedural close per Frietjes. Userboxes go to WP:MfD Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User vivat esperanza (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful because Esperanza no longer exists, and not used anywhere. Qu e ntin Smith 20:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wrong venue, userboxes are debated at WP:MFD. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2015 (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:Valdosta 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 delete as unneeded and per precedent Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Valdosta highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates like these are added clutter for articles (Interstate 75 in Georgia would have several of these if they all were created), and Valdosta is an odd choice for a template as it's a relatively small city. Also see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Category:United_States_metropolitan_area_highway_templates. Rs chen 7754 19:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously, as one of the least-favorable editors at USRD, this opinion most likely won't make any difference. However, I must say that I believe these templates are a visual help and aid for editors. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there are 10 on an article? --Rs chen 7754 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NENAN. –Fredddie ™ 21:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not need template of roads in metropolitan area of 139K people. Dough 48 72 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — There is some precedent in the deletions of county-based navboxes of highways over the past few years; such an example for Valdosta that may or may not have existed would be List of highways in Lowndes County, Georgia. Categories are a less intrusive and less link-polluting method of grouping highway articles. If we really need a list of highways in a metropolitan area, it can be created in the article about the metropolitan area, much as some county articles have a list of highways. V C 04:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Personally, I hate these navboxes with lists of roads by county, but that's a gut reaction and a pretty poor reason to delete them. Are there establishedn TfD precedents for how we treat these? Do Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads or Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets have an established precedents, standards or internal guidelines for dealing with these? Do any current discussion participants know the answers? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProject U.S. Roads has a list of precedents for keeping or deleting templates and a generalized list of reasons for whether a template should be kept or deleted. Most of the county navbox discussions are linked near the bottom of Other Debates. V C 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, clutter per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the above and my comments at the referenced talk page thread. Imzadi 1979 → 02:30, 19 February 2015 (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:Central Asian American

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_23. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queer Lion

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. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queer Lion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Back in 2009, a user created spinoff articles about the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Queer Lion film awards for those individual years as separate topics from the main overview of the award itself. (The award, it warrants note, has continued to this day — but no such spinoff article has ever been created for any year since 2009.) The spinoff articles, further, were not reliably sourced enough to stand alone as independent topics, and delved into excessively trivial levels of inappropriate detail (extended biographical sketches of each individual juror, etc.), and have now been redirected back to the parent article. As a result, this template no longer serves any actual purpose — it sits only on the main article itself, with its only contents being three recursive redirects back to the same article it's sitting on. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no longer provides any useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unuseful —PC-XT+ 09:47, 18 February 2015 (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.