Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

July 16

Template:ExpertChemistry

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) 02:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obsolete (see {{Expert-subject}}). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deprecated and unused. -- Selket ^Talk 15:18, 17 July 2012 (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:European player statistics start

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) 02:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European player statistics start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table header. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2012 (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:Erasmus Line

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 merging content. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Erasmus Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused map. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Rotterdam Metro -- Selket ^Talk 15:20, 17 July 2012 (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:England people message 2

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) 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:England people message 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused cat head. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2012 (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:Election-table2

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) 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election-table2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused fork of Election-table. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unused fork. -- Selket ^Talk 15:22, 17 July 2012 (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:EIFL

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) 02:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary with so few links. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:NENAN especially with only one link. -- Selket ^Talk 15:23, 17 July 2012 (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:EDITSPERUSER-unrounded

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, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EDITSPERUSER-unrounded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now merged with {{EDITSPERUSER}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2012 (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:Editnotice List of fictional universes

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 close -- actually, I'm just going to fix this -- the template was just created in the wrong place. If anyone really doesn't like this solution go ahead and re-nom Template:Editnotices/Page/List of fictional universes, but I'm pretty sure this should make everyone happy. -- Selket ^Talk 15:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotice List of fictional universes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to have been dropped. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment where do we check the list of editnotices that load for edits? Perhaps it was broken at some point. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was never deployed. Articlespace edit notices live under template:editnotices. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the correct location and update to current wording. The page in question does not have a page notice, but has instructions in comments. This should be fixed. -- Selket ^Talk 15:25, 17 July 2012 (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:Edit linked page not here

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) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit linked page not here (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Never caught on. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete invalid use of hatnotes -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2012 (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:D&D opposition schools

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) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D&D opposition schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no need for a template for such cruft. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for name calling, but the content can go in the article if desired. Delete with or without merge. -- Selket ^Talk 15:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Fancruft, cruft is old and unused code. I think cruft is the correct term here :). Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2012 (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:Meher Baba2

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) 02:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meher Baba2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned alternate version of {{Meher Baba}}. -- Selket ^Talk 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and redundant. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as above. Hoverfish Talk 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2012 (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:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.solmat.2012.01.015

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.solmat.2012.01.015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by a bot, perhaps accidentally? In any case, if it's not used, we don't need it. Robofish (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are thousands of these pages. If they're going to be deleted it will probably need to be a bot, but I'm not sure this is the place to have that discussion. Or is it? Special:Contributions/Citation bot pretty much explains what's going on. -- Selket ^Talk 15:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When it is being updated, you can usually find all the unused ones in Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates. currently, I don't see any other ones there. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why does {{cite doi}} need all these templates (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cite doi/)? Shouldn't the bot just update the citation in the page it is used, like how bots update other citation templates? If it is to speed lookup time, why not have a single autogenerated page, that only the bot uses? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot creates the template one time; it can then be edited manually and used in multiple articles. This template was probably created for an article, then the citation was removed. If anyone uses this DOI again, then it is already filled in. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the point of deleting these every time one happens to be no longer used. They would be needed to display previous versions of the page which had used them, in addition to being available for later use as Gadget has mentioned. It would probably be a good idea to review the usages every now and again just to make sure nothing unexpected is happening. Also some spring cleaning every few years might be necessary if we find that lots of such entries accumulate. --Mirokado (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2012 (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:Ideology

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) 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unnecessarily restrictive wrapper for {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}. The five templates which call this can use the parent template directly. Recommend substitution for those. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace per nom - don't see the need for a separate template here. Robofish (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace per nom. No need for an extra layer of transclusion. Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2012 (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.

Washington county highway navigational boxes

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) 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adams County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Asotin County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Benton County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lewis County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pend Oreille County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Snohomish County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wahkiakum County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Washington county highway navigational boxes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The articles all have Category:Transportation in Adams County, Washington, etc., categories to bind them together without using navboxes to do so. As an example, U.S. Route 12 in Washington would have ten navboxes at the bottom of the article if these were fully implemented on the articles. Similar templates for Michigan were deleted in December 2011. The category will be emptied if these templates are deleted, so it has been nominated here as well. Imzadi 1979 → 06:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The only policy that seems to have been cited for deleting the Michigan ones is that they were unused. These templates are actually in use. So seeing as the only implied policy rationale doesn't exist in regards to these templates, and you haven't actually identified a specific policy under which these should be deleted, this seems to be a default keep. If you want to actually argue a policy under which these should be deleted, then it might be worth going through a whole TfD. I guess the question is why do you believe that several editors were mistaken in using these templates to navigate between roadways in a county? Washington has fewer than half the counties as Michigan, so maybe these templates are a lot more useful and meaningful. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that it's worth having a discussion on the issue. Not everything needs a navbox states, "Worst of all, with too many navboxes piled up, template creep can start to set in. And before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article." While there aren't as many counties in WA as in Michigan, that's not exactly an apt analogy. With the exception of I-75 in Michigan, no highway exists on both peninsulas, making it essentially a group of 15 (less than WA) and a group of 68 (more than WA) possibilities. The 15 templates in MI for the Upper Peninsula were all deleted, as were the two for the Lower Peninsula that existed at the time. WA has double the number of counties as the UP of Michigan. We don't need to fill the bottom of these articles with as many collapsed navboxes. If US 12 received all of the possibly county boxes, plus the US Highway box, and it's related highway box, you're looking at 12, which is more than as many boxes as were removed from M-28. Imzadi 1979 → 07:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was not saying anything about how many templates a given roadway might fall under, merely that the large counties in Washington are going to have a larger number of roadways that can be linked together in a navbox than the small counties of Michigan. Large Washington counties are going to be more likely to need the structure that categories are unable to provide, so I believe that the Michigan example fails to be analogous, both on the actual rationale for deletion and your imposed rationale. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some counties of Michigan have many current and former highways to list in the boxes. Marquette County has M-28, BUS M-28, M-35, US 41, BUS US 41, M-94, M-95, M-553, M-554 (for 9 total). Wayne County has M-1, M-3, M-5, M-8, M-10, US 10, US 12, M-14, US 16, US 24, US 24A, CONN US 24 (x2), M-24, US 25, US 25A, M-39, M-53, M-56, I-75, M-85, I-94, I-96, M-97, M-102, US 112, M-112, M-153, I-275, M-275, I-375, BS I-375 (for 32 total) So again, your claim that the comparisons aren't apt also fails on your stated point. Imzadi 1979 → 07:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) Those are two cherry-picked counties that may or may not reflect the state as a whole. and B) it still ignores the actual nomination and criteria for deletion of the Michigan templates, namely that they were unused. I don't see why we should believe that any of those templates, especially the larger ones, would have been deleted had they been actually used. Your argument about template creep seems to be flatly contradicted by the actual articles, so I ask again: Why were the editors that transcluded these navboxes on their pages wrong? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 07:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, US highway 12 has exactly 0 county highway templates transcluded, in favor of a navbox of highways related to Hwy 12, even though three of the county templates are appropriate. I guess template creep for county highway navboxes fixes itself without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Imzadi1979 removed three of them minutes before filing this TFD. --Rs chen 7754 20:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template creep, categories more useful. NENAN. --Rs chen 7754 08:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no articles linked that have more than three navboxes total, so there doesn't seem to be much template creep happening. These all have at least five links - so the "rule" for WP:NENAN doesn't seem to apply; and editors disagree with you about the usefulness of categories vs. navboxes. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 08:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But for consistency, if we keep the navboxes, then US-12 should have a ton. As should I-5, I-90, US-2, WA 20, and so forth. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except they actually don't have a ton. I'm sorry, but I don't see how, without a serious and specific policy basis, we can overturn the conscious choice of dozens of editors because of something that isn't happening. NENAN seems to be completely irrelevant to these templates and how they are used in extant rather than hypothetical articles. These templates are actually used on the pages of small and minor highways as a means of linking to roadways in the same geographic area - a function that is much less likely to be needed or useful on the specific articles you are concerned about. So when we end up with 5 county highway navboxes on the highway 12 article, then we can start talking about these in terms of template creep. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 09:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because they did until a few minutes before this TFD, when Imzadi1979 removed them. --Rs chen 7754 23:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly disturbed by this development. I have refrained from removing some of these templates from articles where I don't think they belong because I don't believe in prejudicing the deletion discussion, but that ethic is apparently not shared. I thought you weren't supposed to change pages during deletion discussions so that everyone is talking about the same article/template/etc. I guess my question to Imzadi is did deletion discussions take place before where a template was deleted, but the problem didn't exist until you caused it? Do I have to go through every article linked by any of these navboxes to see whether you fiddled with them in order to prejudice this process? Like I said, I find this development incredibly disturbing and I really don't know how to respond to a process that looks like its been rigged. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 23:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very charged accusation - what happened to WP:AGF? Furthermore, there is no rule against editing the subject of a deletion discussion. This happens all the time at AFD, where improvements during the AFD result in the article being kept. --Rs chen 7754 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith - I assumed that the person nominating the templates hadn't been tampering with their usage. Turns out that wasn't true, so none of us know for sure where or how these templates were originally transcluded, and we certainly have no idea whether or not any concerns about creep or usefulness are legitimate. I assumed good faith until I became aware of evidence to the contrary, exactly as WP:AGF says to, but that's run out until Imzadi answers whether he secretly removed, added, or otherwise changed the usage of these templates in any other articles, and why (s)he failed to inform the deletion discussion of those edits. I am well aware that some editing of articles under AfD/TfD happens, but it usually happens in response to a concern brought up in the deletion discussion, and it certainly is noted in that discussion, so that everyone participating is acting on accurate knowledge. That didn't happen here, and I want to know why the original nominator would do something like that in secret if there were no ulterior motives. I really couldn't care less about the actual editing that went on, but by keeping it hidden, (s)he has brought his/her motives and the neutrality and fairness of this deletion process into question. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlist the FA- and A-Class articles under USRD, and periodically work on making formatting updates to those articles as time goes by and standards change. One of those articles is U.S. Route 12 in Washington, which has been rated at A-Class by the project. I removed the extraneous navboxes from the bottom of the article, as the general preference of the project has been to deprecate their usage, while I was doing other editing updates related to the references (some footnotes were lacking easily included information). When I saw that WA still had by-county templates, I removed them from one article and nominated the entire category's worth here. That is all, and my contribution history will validate that. Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because each county navbox has five or more links, per WP:NENAN. As far as I know, there is no rule that says categories are the only correct navigation method to connect articles, so there is no reason to prohibit navboxes based on the prior existence of categories. I learn more toward WP:ANOEP than the subjective arguments in NENAN. I did notice there is a List of highways in Wahkiakum County, Washington, which is redundant with the county routes navbox. I disagree with county routes lists because the navbox does a good job covering that in a condensed format. If you feel a county route list is really necessary, it can be done in the X County, State article.

Now that I have stated my abstract viewpoint in favor, I will become practical. If the Washington county route navboxes are not deleted, they really need to be standardized. They all look different and it hurts my discerning brain, not to mention it may confuse people who are using the navboxes. V C 17:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that they should be more uniform in presentation. I like the Benton county format personally, and would be happy to assist you in maintenance on these guys. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 21:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category serves the purpose. There are several Maryland counties that also have similar navboxes. If this discussion decides to delete these navboxes, the Maryland ones should be deleted as well. Dough 48 72 16:16, 12 July 2012 (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) 00:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these simply seem unnecessary and redundant to the categories to me. Robofish (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better as a category than a stack of navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a little too granular to be useful, imnsho. Also, I shudder to think of how many templates any interstate article would have if this concept was fleshed out. A navbox for SRs should be focused on the state level, not county. Reso lute 23:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't intended for use on Interstate articles, they're intended for all the little state routes that dot the transportation landscape. That's where they're used, and that's where they're useful. No matter how comprehensive a category is, all it can do is organize things in alphabetical order, not logically, and certainly not respecting the hierarchical or geographic nature of state routes. These templates do that, and shutting them down when they're useful and not causing a problem is a big problem in my book. Templates exist to standardize presentations, and this is inviting a mess of cross-links and presentations - the exact opposite of a useful development. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 09:10, 18 July 2012 (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:Paulina Goto

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) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paulina Goto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Most of this is overlapped by the {{Eme 15}} template — Goto only has only one solo album, no notable singles, and I'm pretty sure we don't put filmographies in navboxes. This should be either deleted or merged to the Eme 15 template; precedent for such a merge is supported by template such as {{Brooks & Dunn}}, which includes the solo outputs of both members. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:30, 7 July 2012 (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) 00:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for a separate template here. No objection to merging the solo album into the {{Eme 15}} template. Robofish (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2012 (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.