Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6

Template:Family disambiguation

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. If someone wants to recreate the title as a redirect, they are more than welcome. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template creator notified Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect it back to the original target it started out with: Template:Genus disambiguation. Could be useful as some use 'family' name as an alternate for 'Genus', i think. -- œ ^™ 23:24, 12 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:Battledis

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Links to a category which doesn't exist. Mhiji (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template creator notified Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 01:55, 11 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:Reference desk navigation

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference desk navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 6 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:Former Yugoslavia tallest buildings lists

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) 02:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former Yugoslavia tallest buildings lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox, because unlike List of tallest structures in former Yugoslavia it doesn't actually have a coherent theme (buildings tallest 1945-1991), it just links the tallest building lists of today. These are already navbox'ed through the European template, so this makes no real sense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what's there stopping ppl starting templates of tallest buildings in roman empire or Austrian empire, w/e. just useless piece of spam if you ask me, Yugoslavia is no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template because I thought it would be useful for navigation. If most people don't think so, then delete it. --Local hero ^talk 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be useful if it was converted to a Part of a series on sidebar. In its current state though I'd say delete. Mhiji (talk) 18:33, 6 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:Palestine foreign relations

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 contents of the template have already been merged into the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Accordingly, no future need for this template is apparent. JPG-GR (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine foreign relations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a redundant template. The content was moved to Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, and there are no other pages intended to hold a transclusion. The talk page contents were also moved to Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority/Recognition section and table, by the author (Alinor (talk · contribs)). I previously requested speedy deletion, but was opposed by an uninvolved user. Nightw 08:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that "If there is no need anymore to synchronize content on both SoP and the Foreign relations articles, then yes - the template should be deleted", but here Eliko states that "there is still some need to synchronize content" and that some content is not yet moved. I think that we should wait for him to explain what content is not yet moved and what needs to be synchronized. Currently the duplicated content is not in the SoP page (it contains a link to the Foreign relations page instead) and I don't see any missing content (but haven't checked it line-by-line - so maybe there is something I missed). Alinor (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe he disagrees with the replacing of the content in the SoP page with a link to Foreign relations page - maybe he wants the content to remain on both pages (thus a need to synchronize). Let's wait for his input on these issues. Alinor (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Palestine page is already long enough. Per convention, specific topics about the country (e.g., foreign relations) should be sectioned and summarised, with hatnotes to the Main articles for further information (see current). It won't ever contain the template's content. If the user disagrees with the content, then s/he should take it up on the talk page of the new location, but the template itself is redundant: it isn't being used, and won't be used in the foreseeable future. Nightw 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an "uninvolved user", as you can realize by looking at the history page. Anyways, 126th and 127th footnotes were not moved to the other article, nor the line to which the 127th footnote refers. Eliko (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, those were subsequent edits made after the move? Nightw 09:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{db-g6}} states that the content was moved by the "author", and this is incorrect.
When any consensus (for deletion) was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be moved.
When the template {{db-g6}} was presented, there was still some content to be moved.

Eliko (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to add to the article any information that you feel is missing. It's not a reason to oppose deletion of a template that is not being used, and won't be used in the future. There's only three questions relevant to this TfD:

Is the template being used? No.
Is the template going to be used? No.
Is the template needed for any other reason? No. Nightw 10:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko, what is the information that isn't moved? I put the 127th footnote (and re-arranged the table a little). I didn't noticed the 126th footnote, but you can add it, no problem. Anything else? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you had added was reverted and deleted. See the current version of Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Eliko (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were made to an unused template after the move had been made. If you want to persist with those edits on the moved content, you're free to propose it on the talk page there. Otherwise, this looks like a case of WP:POINT: You're blocking a deletion of a redundant template because you haven't gotten your way on other pages. You're content to let it sit there and do nothing, until your edits get pushed through. Nightw 04:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who hides incovenient comments by archiving them. I'm recording everything. Eliko (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Re the "unused template": it's been used during the recent days - many times, including some footnotes (e.g. 127th footnote, and the line to which this footnote is linked) that were used as well.

2. Re the "redundant template". It's redundant only in the view of the user who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, however, it's not redundant at all, in the view of another editor, who thinks that it contains some important information (e.g. 127th footnote, and the line to which this footnote is linked).

3. Re the "move": The date of "moving" the content - has nothing to do with the proper procedure required for handling User:Night w' request. What really matters, is the following:

When any consensus (for deletion) was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be moved, and this content hasn't been moved yet.
When the template {{Tfd}} was presented, there was still some content to be moved, and this content hasn't been moved yet, because somebody - who has presented the template {{Tfd}} - prevents the move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.

4. Re the suggetsion "to propose on the talk page there" the rest of content which has not been moved yet: This is not me, but rather the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, who must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been moved (see above #3), rather than "proposed". Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "moved" (not only "proposed"), but they also try to prevent the full move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.

5. Re "blocking a deletion of a redundant template because of not having gotten one's way on other pages". First, It's redundant only in the view of the user who has presented the template {{Tfd}}. Second, the reason for rejecting this user's request, is not because of "not having gotten one's way on other pages", but rather because the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}} must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been moved (see above #3). Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "moved" (see above #3), but they also try to prevent the full move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.

Eliko (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try posting around for some help again? Nightw 10:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to talk to a user who violates Wikipedia rules. Eliko (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Let's send it into the holding cell as merge, and if there's anything that needs to be merged, it can be done, and then redirected. If not, it can just be redirected. --Bsherr (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the template? Where to?

About the merge - I posted the 126 and 127 notes (it seems that this is the non-merged content) at this talk page because Night w insists on prior discussion - but if Eliko refuses to discuss anything with him - I don't see how this will work.

My opinion is that there is no problem in using these sources and we can easily add them and this is fairly uncontroversial - but as it seems it may not be so. Alinor (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note Eliko, if I understand correctly you accuse Night w of deleting/changing comments. This is a big accusation, so could you provide links to edit history showing this? Alinor (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, I think he's just referring to our discussion on my talk page, which I archived. Nightw 08:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alinor, I was referring to a comment of mine, in which I proved (by direct links) that somebody had violated the three revert rule; Somebody here (not you) knows what I mean. Anyways, as far as the idea of "merge" (of 126th and 127th footnotes) is concerned, I support it as well, so we are now at least two unquestionable editors (and probably three), against one unquestionable editor who rejects that merge. Eliko (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let's discuss it here - and postpone the template deletion for after a consensus is reached about the 126 and 127 footnotes inclusion. Maybe we should put some tag in the template that it is pending deletion after finalizing a merge (so any future changes by any user are made not in the template, but directly in the Foreign relations article). Alinor (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. so we are now two editors who support this idea. Who rejects it? Eliko (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an outcome. You've already moved the subsequent edits to the talk page for discussion. The template, on the other hand, which is what this nomination is for, is still unused, and, you both agree apparently, won't be used in the future. You're blocking the deletion of an unused template simply over a content dispute elsewhere. Whether or not consensus will be reached about those few edits under discussion is another matter; it doesn't make this template worth keeping. Nightw 09:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template could have been deleted, only if the parties had agreed about its redundancy. However, not only no consensus has been reached upon this issue of redundancy, but also the template is still used, and probably will be used, unless it's merged (if ever) with the other article. Eliko (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it is still used? Where is it being used? Your edits were made after the merge, and as you're aware, they're being discussed elsewhere. If a consensus is reached to add them, then they'll be added. Blocking the deletion of unused space because you're not getting your way on another article is plain WP:POINT. Nightw 12:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template:Palestine Foreign relatins, is used on this category page and also on this category page. Additionally, it has been used - by readers - during the recent days, many times.
No merge has ever been carried out, because no proposal to "merge", has ever been agreed upon.
When the idea of "merge" was proposed (by User:Bsherr on 9 december), there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet.
When any consensus for deletion was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet.
When the template {{Tfd}} was presented, there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet, because somebody - who has presented the template {{Tfd}} - prevents the merge, by violating Wikipedia rules.

Eliko (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was merged in this edit, at 02:59, 28 November 2010. Any subsequent edits (all of which are being disputed elsewhere) can't be accounted for. If you want to add them to the new page, propose them on the talk page there. Stats for the template show very few views, most likely all editors considering the spike on 6 December, when the template was listed at TfD. Nightw 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date of "merging" the content - has nothing to do with the proper procedure required for handling User:Night w' request. What really matters is the dates I indicated above.
Re the suggetsion "to propose on the talk page there" the rest of content which has not been merged: This is not me, but rather the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, who must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been merged, rather than "proposed". Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "merged" (not only "proposed"), but they also try to prevent the full merge, by violating Wikipedia rules.

Eliko (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh*... Nightw 14:50, 13 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:User Badjokes

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 Speedy delete per G2. Mhiji (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Template:User Badjokes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)~~

~~Template:User NTCSNS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)~~

~~Template:User DNKHTMAUB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)~~

Template:User duh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that does not appear to have any encyclopedic value. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 05:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes should be listed at WP:MFD even if in template space (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Header#What_not_to_propose_for_discussion_here). Mhiji (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Template:User duh isn't a userbox. Delete that as unnecessary and unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first three have been sent to MfD. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although not necessarily per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:15, 6 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:Infobox bus service

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 Merge. Bidgee has converted the two transclusions to the other template. Thank you! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bus service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has a limited number of transclusions, and is basically redundant to {{Infobox bus transit}}. My prior attempts to convert the uses of this template to {{Infobox bus transit}} were resisted due to the "bus transit" template being "Americanised". I believe that any WP:ENGVAR can be included in {{Infobox bus transit}} and the two could be merged. Although, it appears "bus transit" is already in use for both Australia and England, so it is unclear what is Americanised about the template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, I would like to see some of the features which Infobox bus service has (Hubs, Depots, Operating since and maybe Disability access), also Australia doesn't use Locale (Its location or locality not locale). I would have been nice if it was discussed (on my talk page) first rather then placed here. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox bus transit already has hubs & depots. founded can be used as an alternative to operatingsince. Disability access is not there but could be added as a param. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Essentially duplicative. Doesn't seem to be any difference that can't be overcome by conscientiously merging the two. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Features of both can be accomodated in one. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Mhiji (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - What's wrong with writing some prose, rather than stuffing an infobox with lists of Hubs, Depots and Routes? Parameters in an infobox should indicate how many of those exist rather than details. Use service_area rather than locale. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:46, 6 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:Nebula/Best Novel

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nebula/Best Novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hugo/Best Novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned succession templates, which could be replaced by a standard {{succession box}} if necessary. Plastikspork (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 14:09, 6 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:Pixar animated film chronology

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pixar animated film chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused succession template. No significant edits since 2008. Plastikspork (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This use of the succession box template is inferior to a navigation box. --Bsherr (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:31, 9 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:Animation editors/doc

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animation editors/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless documentation page that does not add any understanding to using the template. Usually these templates (e.g. Template:Theories of gravitation) would require no documentation. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by the nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:17, 7 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:Dookie

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) 02:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a common use of navigational boxes. Templates for entire track listings of albums are only useful if all songs on the album have articles such as {{Led Zeppelin IV}} or {{Pet Sounds}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some album navboxes in which not every song has an article. - PM800 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's unnecessary. All of the articles which use it are singles and there is also the {{Green Day}} template on each one of those. The {{Green Day}} template also links to each of these articles too making this one redundant. What's the point of having 2 navboxes on the bottom of each article when we only need one?! Because of that it doesn't aid navigation it just complicates things. Mhiji (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, Template:Parachutes, Template:Dewaar, Template:Inquilaab and Template:Kashmakash should also be deleted. If not, we might as well make a navbox for every album! Mhiji (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Agreed as being unnecessary. The album article will contain all the links that are necessary, and that page will be linked to on every song page. Nightw 10:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're not nominated, so they cannot presently be considered. --Bsherr (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the other 4 for deletion for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_9#Template:Parachutes. Mhiji (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant to {{Green Day}}. Navigation templates are not discographies (or, in this case, track listings). There are only 5 links, all of which are in the Green Day template, and the other song titles are unlikely to ever be linked as the songs do not pass the criteria for stand-alone articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 15 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:Hmed

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. Courcelles 08:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't make sense, since Wikipedia does not give medical advice. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Mhiji (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Template doesn't do anything or link to anywhere. It's purpose is so vague that it is clearly not necessary.--Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and pretty useless too. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 03:24, 9 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.