Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

Template:British Theatre

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) 04:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Theatre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only 2 links: the parent article and 1 related. It's not even used in the related article, so it only links back to the 1 article it's used in. Not enough related articles to necessitate/benefit from a navbox (WP:NAVBOX). IllaZilla (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. A navbox would be warranted if articles existed for notable band members, EPs, and the claimed upcoming full-length album. So maybe later; too soon for now. Gongshow ^Talk 15:42, 12 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:GironaMayors

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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is only employed on a single article and consists mostly of redlinks. Lmatt (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This navbox is useless. Without valid links to articles, it won't help readers at all. Senator2029 • talk 03:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but make sure there is a link to List of mayors of Girona in the see also section. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 12 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:The Clutch

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, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Clutch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Technically doesn't navigate much — only 3 of them have articles, then their discography. Awards is a redlink, and "selected clients" should just go since it's a totally abritrary list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 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:Railway Stations in India

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) 00:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway Stations in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template. It can be replaced by Template:Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Template:Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways. Besides, vague inclusion criteria (what is considered an "important station"?). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 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:Confusing section

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Confusing section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just a container for {{confusing|section}}. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Confusing}} as covered by {{Confusing|section}} --J36miles (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep current fashion to to use wrapper tags for sections. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 'confusing' is an ambiguous term. More objective existing tags ought to serve a similar, albeit objective purpose. Gilliam (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a pipeless wrapper is user-friendly and also allows for style variation in future should be wish it (i.e. to look like {{expand section}}. It's not obvious what harm

this is doing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic, we shouldn't delete anything per WP:N, as a useless article isn't "doing any harm" by just sitting there (assuming it has no contentious material). Huh, I guess I was wasting my time by WP:A3 tagging those articles about people's gay friends and lovable pet parakeets. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ditto to User:Thumperward! Simple & intuitive, and as it doesn't violate any policy, there is no reason it must be deleted. Senator2029 • talk 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff doesn't have to violate any policy in order to be deleted. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete with a redirect to {{Confusing}}. Thumperward's comment on variation is a good one but the right place for that is inside {{Confusing}}'s handling of the Section parameter. Gilliam's comment would be applicable if both this template and {{Confusing}} were being nominated for deletion together. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, harmless shortcut. if you don't like this sort of thing, then nominate all of the "foo section" cleanup shortcuts. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 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:Elizabeth Gillies

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, will userfy upon request. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elizabeth Gillies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redirects or piped links. Take those out without a direct connection to this individual and there's really nothing left to warrant a navbox for this person. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - the problem is not that this person is only marginally notable and has only 1 or 2 works with articles that would survive AfD, but rather that the articles that could use this template don't all do so. With a little attention, the template can properly reflect this person's career and be used in all articles about this person's works. In other words, if this template were deleted today and next month someone came along and gave articles about this person's works some attention, the template would need to be re-created anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Informational comment I de-wikilinked two of the songs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete or userfy, it would be simple to recreate when there are a couple more articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 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.