Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

July 3

Template:Pensacola Government

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 merged Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pensacola Government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Pensacola Government with Template:Pensacola.
The two templates overlap one another. Pensacola Government entries can be easily made into its own section in City of Pensacola. ...William 23:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean {{Pensacola}}? {{City of Pensacola}} doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I meant Pensacola....William 10:39, 4 July 2013 (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:Sharon Tate

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) 00:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sharon Tate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an actor's navigational template that goes against WP:MOSFILM#Navigation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries#Filmography navbox templates. After removing the films from the template all we are left with are her mother, two lovers and a section about her death in Charles Manson's article. All of these articles are already linked in her article and have no other connection besides Tate so a navigational template is not needed for these four remaining links. Aspects (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, we don't navigate by actor, and there really isn't enough left if the acting filmography is removed. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete to reduce the proliferation of un-needed, un-used, or otherwise ill-considered or contra-policy templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2013 (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:Rashi table

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 with Hindu astrology. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rashi table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why do we need this as a template when the table can easily be included in the article directly? Also it has only two transclusions and both are in the body part of the articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy paste the text in those two articles before deleting or notify me & i will do it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, you cannot delete this because of the edit history. If you must, you can merge the edit history somewhere, but it would be much easier to just keep it around. If you simply copy-paste move the content and delete the history, you will be in violation of our own licence.

If it has two transclusions, it already makes sense to transclude is, at it is a nightmare to maintain duplicated content across pages. --dab (𒁳) 11:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why do we need this table in more than one article? I say, merge it with an article, and move the template to a subpage of that article with a redirect to preserve the history. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with User:Frietjes. Currently its transcluded in Astrological sign and Astrology and the classical elements. The template can be actually removed from both and the info can be moved to Hindu_astrology#R.C4.81.C5.9Bi_.E2.80.93_zodiacal_signs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 28 June 2013 (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) 02:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after copying to Hindu Astrology. This material belongs in the main article as detail and not in the summaries from other articles. As for the need for attribution, I'm not sure that it is needed as this is a simple table of information. Does it surpass the creativity threshold to be considered creative work? See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2013 (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.