Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 24

< November 23	November 25 >

November 24 edit

Template:Countrynationalleacat 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was substitute and then delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template creates a massive, and in my opinion unnecessary, category blurb and also categorizes. I think for these categories a manual approach would be more transparent and appropriate. meco (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When automatic categorisation works, it's good, but this one had broken down and the creator (and only person who really understands the whole web of templates), User: Pee Tern has been inactive for over a year now. The only real stumbling block is the possibility that we would be left with hundreds of articles not categorised at all if auto categorisation is removed, but I think this would be outweighed by the fact that (somewhat rampant) incorrect categorisation would also stop. I categorised all the US LEA articles a few years back, and I would say that maybe 25% used auto categorisation, but I have no idea what that would be now, or how it would be in other articles. On a technical note, not sure this can be deleted without also deleting everything in Category:Infobox Law enforcement agency categorisation templates, and again not sure what the consequences of deletion of those would be for the parent template, Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency. ninety:one 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could withdraw this nom and do an umbrella nomination of all of them instead? __meco (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Slight misunderstanding here on my part: these templates do not categorise articles but rather category pages. Yes, they all do need nominating together because they are pretty much identical. I remember now; they were part of a wider effort by Pee Tern to merge categories and lists that never really got off the ground. My remarks about the effect of removing them still stand - will need to check all the cats, but I guess I don't have any real objection to their removal. ninety:one 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete, but after some minor modifications. First, I don't like the automatic categorization of the {{Infobox law enforcement agency}}, and I plan to clean that up. After that, the section about how to add the category will be unnecessary. Second, I would like to add some "safesubst:" logic to make it substitute cleanly. Please ping me if the closing decision is to substitute and delete, and I will take care of both of these issues if I haven't already. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to go with that, so substitute and delete for me as well. Thank you! ninety:one 19:25, 2 December 2010 (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:Damien Hirst 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Damien Hirst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These few links are easily accessible in the main article on this man. Redundant clutter. Artiquities (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be succinct and relevant concerning a particularly notable figure...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim. Remove the galleries, patrons and movement sections. As a navigation for articles on the major works and exhibitions it has value.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it would be better if the colour could be changed :) Rehman 12:53, 1 December 2010 (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:Lionel Richie singles 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The template has already been merged into Template:Lionel Richie. The redirect is not needed as these templates are supposed to be used on the same articles. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lionel Richie singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the singles here that have articles are listed in Template:Lionel Richie. The ones that don't don't belong on a navigational box, so this is just redundant to the main template that is on each of the song articles as well. No need for both. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the singles from {{Lionel Richie}}. Precedent is that singles templates can be separate from the main article template, as it reduces clutter on both. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't {{Madonna songs}} or {{Queen singles}}. I see little clutter in the main template for Richie with the list of existing song articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge In the grand scheme of things, wouldn't both templates just end up being transcluded to the same articles? --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{Lionel Richie}} by adding any missing in the latter, then redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Most of the entries in the singles template are not actually linked, and hence, there are actually not that many, so adding them to the {{Lionel Richie}} template does not add that much. The complete list of singles can, of course, be listed in a corresponding Lionel Richie discography article. Navigation templates are for navigation, and this singles template appears to be trying to be a comprehensive list, rather than a list of links. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there clear consensus to merge here? Plus, the fact that it has already been done previously. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2010 (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:Tracey Emin 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tracey Emin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These few links are already easily accessible within the article on Emin. Entirely redundant temp.--Artiquities (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Rehman 12:52, 30 November 2010 (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:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north2 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary template. It only applies to one station in the subway system and the service suspension is only temporary. We can just add a note to the station infobox saying that it is closed for reconstruction The Legendary Ranger (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary; per The Legendary Ranger above. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A unneeded template. →Gƒoley Four (GSV) 23:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply useless. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:50, 26 November 2010 (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.