Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 8

< March 7	March 9 >

March 8 edit

Britney Spears track listings 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) 22:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Circus (Britney Spears album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same situation that just occurred with the now-deleted Template:Unapologetic track listing. If there is a better designed template, in that case Template:Rihanna songs, then the other is not needed. In the case of Spears's albums, individual Circus and Femme Fatale track listings are not needed with the revised format that Template:Britney Spears songs has adopted. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to just use a navbox here. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previosu decisions. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The navbox provides more complete and efficient navigation. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:16, 16 March 2013 (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:Dead link header 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 after replacement with {{citations broken}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dead link header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundancy between header tags and in-line ones can be useful, such as with {{or}} and {{original research}}. But I can't picture a context where this would be favorable to {{dead link}}, at least with the current wording. Dead links may exist anywhere. If you find a dead link, you should mark it. Does this just exist to link to the webchecklinks tool? BDD (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better to mark the individual dead links. Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I agree marking individual dead links is usually better, this one does have some limited value. It could be used when a section contains a large number of dead links and someone doesn't want to tag every single one; and unlike {{dead link}}, it links to the tool that helps correct them. I can see it as a legitimate alternative. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2013 (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) 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it odd that there wasn't a template that already did this, and then I found it: {{citations broken}}. This is redundant to that older and slightly better-styled template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I still prefer individual tagging, but you're right about the redundancy. We can at least redirect there. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better to use the inline version {{dead link}}, and redundant to {{citations broken}}. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant -PC-XT+ 11:17, 14 March 2013 (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:Spielberg Hanks World War II 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) 22:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spielberg Hanks World War II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no need for a template devoted to Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, and the projects they have made together about World War Two. This collaboration is neither so singularly significant nor voluminous to justify its own template. There are five items in this template (one of which is only indirectly related) and it is not likely to increase. Is this really necessary for navigation and searching? The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps not, but I do think there should be some navigation for the three miniseries they have done. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we navigate by director, not other arbitrary intersections. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX, I know, but if we don't have a Tim Burton/Johnny Depp navbox, I'd say this one's a stretch. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Frietjes. It is sufficient to just add normal links in the related articles (a "See also" section if necessary). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such links already exist, in the relevant infoboxes, as well as in the body of the respective articles. This is just repetition. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:34, 15 March 2013 (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:Lenka 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) 22:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN, just 4 relevant links The Banner talk 22:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - NENAN's weak rule is 5 links; I see 5 directly relevant links in the template in toto, plus one of lesser relevance. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2013 (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) 14:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2013 (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:Original UEFA Champions League Clubs 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) 22:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original UEFA Champions League Clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Original UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar template to Template:Original Football League clubs and others, but unlike the Football League clubs who founded the league - the 8 clubs who participated in the first UEFA Champions League tournament was just 8 random clubs that qualified that year, so its not like these 8 clubs were "founders" of the Champions League, and I don't see the need to links these articles too eachother through a navbox. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when notifying the creator, I found two related discussions about similar templates from August 2012: Template:Original European Cup/UEFA Champions League Clubs and Template:Original UEFA Cup/UEFA Europa League Clubs, so there seems to be a consensus to delete such templates. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm also nominated this related template, Template:Original UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Clubs, for the same reason. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - prime examples of WP:NENAN. Giant Snowman 10:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per above. – Pee Jay 14:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not a special edition to other years. -Koppapa (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2013 (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:WikiProject Xbox 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) 22:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Xbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded template, WikiProject Xbox is now a task force of WikiProject Video games. JJ98 (Talk) 09:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but update or redirect. The template is transcluded 765 times. Deleting it will remove WikiProject tagging from the relevant articles. Much better to update it to reflect the current status of the project as a task force. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I am currently replacing WikiProject Xbox banner with {{WikiProject Video games}} with |Xbox=yes. It had it on the {{WikiProject Microsoft}} banner, but I removed since it is now a task force. JJ98 (Talk) 09:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it a shared task force between WPMS and WPVG? Xbox is an MS product. (many TFs are shared between multiple wikiprojects, and exist on multiple banners) Replacing the banners would need to add both WPVG and WPMS banners onto articles. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the project is closer to WP:VG then WP:MSFT. See talk page archive. JJ98 (Talk) 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once all tranclustion have been updated to use Video games banner. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after complete replacement. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2013 (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.