Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No issues with recreation provided that there are actually pages to navigate to. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too early to have their own template as the group is relatively new. Not enough links as they only released one EP and has just one member article. Rockysmile11(talk) 20:33, 28 February 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was merge, with {{LACMTA stations}} redirecting to {{LA Metro station}}Primefac (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:LA Metro station with Template:LACMTA stations.
Essentially a duplicate of the earlier template. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree There seems no real reason to have two templates show the exact same thing. Calebrw (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Earlier this year, a consensus was reached to have a switch to the LA Metro template, due to the fact that people may not know what the LACMTA is. It is for simplicity's sake. The LACMTA template is the one that should be deleted, as it is no longer the agency's common name. TJH2018 (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was listify the samurai and daimyo sections, keeping the rest. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unreadably long, a category in navbox format. It's much longer than many of the articles it's used in. Delete, but allow userfy if somebody wants to convert it to a list or category.  Sandstein  17:21, 28 February 2016 (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).

Philippine radio navboxes

[edit]
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:TG, "templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers". Templates should also not be used to create lists of links. In this case, a list of links that are almost all red links. The useful links should be removed and added to a list within the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2016 (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).