Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

Template:Goetic demons

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Goetic demons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navigation template is an effective content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon#The_72_Demons. There may be an argument to split the list from The Lesser Key of Solomon into a list article but this is a pointless template when category:Goetic demons is already used on every page that forms the navigation template. Ash (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As discussed in WP:CLN, categories, lists and navigation templates should not be considered content forks of one another. I don't see anything about this template that makes it unworkable as a navbox. The items are all related in an objective and relevant way; there is a fixed number of possible entries that is not excessively large; and there does not appear to be a problem with demon-related template clutter. If anything, this template could do some good by bringing more eyes to the articles about less well-known demons, many of which are stubs with only a few incoming links. --RL0919 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

probably eventually Delete given that all the articles will soon be merged, though it has proven a rather stubborn process. Probably wait till this has been accomplished. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to limited use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:05, 16 February 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:Cantonese-tiyjp

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cantonese-tiyjp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of a series of language templates for Cantonese... I would say merge to {{zh}}, since that template is missing IPA and SAMPA, and does not support Cantonese Yale, so it is missing functionality (or a separate Cantonese unified-template needs to be created) 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, and completely replaceable by {{zh-full}}. ({{zh}} could also be expanded to include IPA capabilities if there's enough demand for them. {{zh}} already includes Yale functionality.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:57, 31 January 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:UserWorkInProgress

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 to {{Userspace draft}}. RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Userspace draft}}, but mostly because it is of no value to know about a userpage that it is under construction. See also Template_talk:Userspace_draft#Merge_two_tags where this was first discussed. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{userspace draft}}. The large number of transclusions suggest that lots of people are used to this name, and preserving a redirect wouldn't really hurt. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:05, 31 January 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:The Fellowship Navbox

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 Withdrawn by nom, now that the template has been substantially changed Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Fellowship Navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Purpose is unclear, does not seem necessary and has mainly redlinks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navbox with only two valid links. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The user, Ivananderson, completely changed the template with his edit. He removed the valid pages that were part of it, and filled it with red links. I have undone his changes with my edit. Alan and RL0919, please take a look at the template now.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good catch by Kevin. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom per comments and good work done by Kevinkor2. Hmm, was not obvious vandalism - must be careful in future and not make assumptions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:24, 1 February 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.