Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 15

< June 14	June 16 >

June 15

Template:Slocum

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) 02:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

this is a navigation box that doesn't actually connect articles, since it is only used on one page. the survivors list is already in the "survivors" section in the article, and the location is already in the article as well. since no other articles include this, it is entirely unnecessary. Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It does not serve much of a purpose, and has very limited applicability.--RSStockdale (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relevant information is already within the main page; the template is unnecessary--GroovySandwich 03:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there doesnt seem to be enough articles that could go under this umbrella to aid in navigation significantly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:35, 17 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:U-KISS singles

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) 18:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U-KISS singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates info already in {{U-KISS}}, and even at that, only a few of the singles have articles, limiting its purpose of navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articled for other songs are still on the work. Give more time so that articles will be completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JmKissme (talk • contribs) 06:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create the articles then create the template. It would still be redundant to information in {{U-KISS}}. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:02, 20 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:George Formby

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) 02:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:George Formby (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reasoning by the previous editors on this subject seems sound and makes a whole lot of sense to me. directors, yes. actors, no.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:25, 17 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:EBRPD

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) 02:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not currently used, a better template now exists, and is in placej at all appropriate articles (Template:East Bay Regional Parks). this one has way too many redlinks, many links which are not appropriate for this template subject. creator is a blocked sockpuppeteer, so we wont be hearing from them. no one else seems to have worked on this template enough to possibly care much. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:26, 15 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:Women's sports

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) 18:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Women's sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fatally flawed template. Previously linked to sports women played, but did not receive coverage in articles (see edit summary from 5 April 2011). When somebody realized that, it was changed to a list of featured/good articles on women's sports, a distinction that isn't really template-worthy. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created based on misunderstanding of policy and stuff going on. My bad. I support deletion. --LauraHale (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete this template. Before Laurahale changed the template, it was linking to articles of sports which where not discussing women's role in sport. It was a content fork.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per creator and nom. content would be proper as a list maintained in the proposed wikiproject, which is a good idea.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revert back I originally created this about two years ago as a link to sports women played. I think it is still useful as an infobox for various articles on specific sports that women participate in. Pinkkeith (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But at least half the sports in the template have little or no coverage of women Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:41, 21 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.