Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 10

< December 9	December 11 >

December 10 edit

Template:Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends 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) 01:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant of Template:Coldplay and Template:Coldplay singles — Status {^talk_contribs 22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as template creator). Delete an album template? A Coldplay album, preferably one of the most successful albums of this century? You would delete a Coldplay album and keep nearly everything else? Well, SOMEBODY hates Coldplay. I mean, there are a million album templates out there, and you pick on one of the most popular and successful bands of all time? Should we delete all the Pink Floyd, Beatles and The Who album templates aswell? It should be necessary if you want to delete this one. — User:RazorEyeEdits (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If every single song on the album had it's own article, the template would be useful. But it doesn't. And just for the record, Coldplay is my favorite band of all time, so I don't understand how you would get such an idea. — Status {^talk_contribs 20:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Status. Consider this a vote to also delete any other equally redundant templates, per RazorEyeEdits. -- I need a name (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't the first rodeo dealing with this issue. Most of the templates created after this style have been deleted too. I feel that if the information can fit comfortably in the regular artist/single templates, there is no need for a specialized template of this nature. I think it becomes necessary if there are more than 20 links. And as I need a name said, consider this statement a delete vote on any other template of this nature (redundant album template with less than 20 links). | ^help _dןǝɥ | 00:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I love Coldplay myself, and I personally think that Wikipedia should have an article on any of their songs, similarly to the Beatles, the template is indeed pointless in this state. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2011 (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:Opeth timeline 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) 01:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Opeth timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (I posted information about deletion nomination on Talk:Opeth) Bulwersator (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, the info is already in the albums' personnel section Quibus (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2011 (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:Ontario royal sites 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) 01:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ontario royal sites (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox (with external links), without main article or sources. Second result of "Ontario royal sites" google search. Bulwersator (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like a bunch of articles of places named after Royals... considering how many there are, that could become enormous. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (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:Ontario Family Leaders 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) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ontario Family Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with 4 links to a single article Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if kept rename. The current name is horrid, and highly ambiguous. If this survives, it should be renamed to template:Family Coalition Party of Ontario leaders . 76.65.128.198 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unused navbox that does not navigate anywhere. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (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:Olympicbid 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) 01:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, useless Bulwersator (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (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:Oldid external 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) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldid external (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete replicates Template:Oldid's functionality. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the time it was created, {{oldid}} did something else... but now oldid uses external linking. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2011 (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:Single rationale 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Single rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally redundant to {{Album rationale}}. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Album rationale}} per nom. PhilKnight (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2011 (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:Flag rationale 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flag rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally redundant to {{Symbol rationale}}. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 04:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Symbol rationale}} per nom. PhilKnight (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2011 (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.