Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 19

< June 18	June 20 >

June 19 edit

Template:US 90 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) 01:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US 90 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates four articles. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Template updated to include bannered routes of US 90 and US 290. US 190 also has business routes that would presumably be included in the future. Fortguy (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this still seems like a waste of a template. Can't we just add them to the article as See also links or include in the article body somewhere? --Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Template has enough links to be useful. Dough 48 72 20:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but modify. The US 290 bannered routes should not be listed here, as they aren't directly related to US 90, in other words they're two levels away from the main subject, not one. See {{US 31}} for that this should look like. It would navigate 4 articles (US 90, US 190, US 290, US 90 alternate/business or "bannered"), and 4 is my personal minimum number of articles for a useful navbox. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 25 June 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:US 91 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US 91 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates four articles. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting All of those routes are far west of me, so I don't have a dog in that hunt. Be aware, however, that both US 91 and US 191 have bannered routes in multiple states that could be linked in the template. Fortguy (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US 91 historically had alternate routes, but currently does not. AFAIK, 3 articles is all this template will have.Dave (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this template, and I don't really care if it survives or is deleted. I will state that I created it as a compromise when U.S. Route 491 was at FAC. There were concerns about placing the articles linked in the template in the See also section of the article. If it is deleted another compromise will have to be created. Dave (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: U.S. Route 491, which uses this template, is scheduled to be TFA for July 4th. I would request the deciding admin take this into consideration and if the decision is to delete, to either delete now, so there is time to "fix" the article, or wait until the TFA is over. Dave (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Template has enough links to be useful. Dough 48 72 20:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only three articles (US 91, US 191, US 491) which is below my personal minimum of four to be useful. (The link to "U.S. Routes" in the header should be pulled from all of these similar templates and not counted in the total.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:02, 25 June 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:Anti-vandal-notice 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) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anti-vandal-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links up to five pages. This not been heavily used lately. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We protect pages where they have seen a lot of vandalism.Curb Chain (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. We have specific templates (such as {{high traffic}}) for cases where a page may be prone to vandalism but unprotected. We don't need a generic one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can only be used if there is a known link to the article from an external site. Peter E. James (talk) 19:29, 26 June 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:US 87 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US 87 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need a navbox for 3 highways? Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Imzadi1979 and WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not voting~~ The template could potentially include a link to a future article about bannered routes. US 87 has three business routes and one former business route in Texas alone. I created the template to replace the US 85 template that someone incorrectly placed on the US 87 article page. As for its utility, I'll abide by consensus. Fortguy (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose US 287 also has 10 bannered routes in Texas alone, and the route stretches northward to Montana. Fortguy (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternate/business US 287 list shouldn't be listed in this template unlike a similar list article for US 87 itself. {{US 31}} has the alternate/business list article for US 31 linked, but not the US 131 one, and it shouldn't be changed either. Imzadi 1979 → 21:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree we just don't need this one. --Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three links is enough to be useful. If it was two or less then I would say delete. Dough 48 72 20:28, 22 June 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.