Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3 edit

Template:HTML element 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).

The result of the discussion was deleted by User:Fastily. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HTML element (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, not clearly explained how to use it. —SamB (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It’s unused, no clear directions, creating user is inactive. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2018 (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).

Template:OldcsdRescued 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barely used, (one 1 talk page, by its creator) and I believe it has several flaws.

Any experienced admin has seen someone “rescue” a deleted article, only to make a new article that still shouldn’t be here
Seems to suggest a policy that does not exist, that an article can’t be deleted twice under the same criterion if someone plants their flag on it and says “look at me, I rescued this”
”Names and shames” deleting admin. Not that they’ve done anything to be ashamed of, but I’ve never seen that in such a template before and it seems overly personal and vindictive.

In short, this seems to have been created to claim victory in the great battle over notability rather than serving a legitimate, policy based purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2018 (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).

Template:Ron Kenoly 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ron Kenoly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There were six links other than the subject's article. The five albums were redirected as non-notable and the other entry doesn't mention the subject. No navigation required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2018 (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).

Stagecoach Eastbourne bus routes 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 01:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route The Loop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 251 252 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 51 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 54 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 55 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stagecoach Eastbourne route 56 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All unused. Non notable bus routes (and unlikely to ever be). Ajf773 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2018 (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).

Template:London Buses route layout 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).

The result of the discussion was deleted by User:Fastily. Primefac (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London Buses route layout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used in any articles, redundant and we don't generally list every stop for bus routes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. with the individual bus route articles being redirected, we don't need this. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2018 (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).

Template:Greatest Hits (Westlife album) tracks 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greatest Hits (Westlife album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unbreakable - The Greatest Hits Volume 1 tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no need nor precedent to have a track listing for every album a song appears on within the infobox of the articles of those songs. Just think if someone tried to do this for songs by the Who or the Beach Boys.

There can be some justification for such templates for the original album but it is excessive to include compilations. Such navigation is better provided by {{Westlife singles}}. Someone interested in the tracklisting can just go to those album pages rather than clutter up infoboxes with multiple templates such as these. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, doubly bad idea for compilation albums. Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Track listings for later album appearances shouldn't be added to infoboxes, because they often overload the boxes with miscellaneous infomation. BTW, it's been tried for some Beach Boy's songs. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2018 (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).