Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 22

< February 21	February 23 >

February 22

Template:Borndied

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 as redundant and unused. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unnecessary. There are a huge amounts of templates for this; see Template:Birth, death and age templates. This one adds nothing, contains outdated formatting such as linking dates, and could be used accidentally. Liam987 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete unused -- Gadget850^talk 07:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale. Redundant to "death date and age" template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Mikepellerin^talk 01:27, 28 February 2015 (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:Lubbock highways

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 per precedents indicated by nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lubbock highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Added clutter for articles, better served by a category. See precedents at WP:USRD/P#Other debates and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_14#Template:Valdosta_highways. Rs chen 7754 18:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per the precedent of the Valdosta deletion and my reasoning there. Imzadi 1979 → 18:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I almost always say, I think these are very useful and needed. Yes, I know there are categories and -- in some cases -- actual pages that also show the roads, but these templates are a more visual representation of that information. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the Valdosta discussion. These templates are clutter and better handled by categories; in addition, this metropolitan area is too small to warrant such a template. Dough 48 72 02:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The case here isn't much different from the Valdosta template's, so the same result should occur. T C N7JM 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Valdosta precedent. V C 04:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale and outcome of previous "Valdosta" TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2015 (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:StrategyWiki

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 relisted on 2015 March 17. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:40, 17 March 2015 (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:WW2InfoBox

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/redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WW2InfoBox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used only in one article (World War II). By the definition of the template, it should be used in more than one article, otherwise it is useless. I propose to substitute the template in the WWII article, and than to delete it. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See here. —Srnec (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a discussion without a consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and redirect to preserve history. (a) This infobox is tiny, compared to WWI's. (b) The protection argument is invalid, as both infoboxes are unprotected, whereas the articles are forever semi-protected. Alakzi (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Srnec. It's quite common for large templates meant for large articles to be moved elsewhere so that the article is less huge and unwieldy. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful template that has no need to be merged. Very active talk page just about the template its self. Has been working well to resolve conflicts. -- Moxy (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article and delete, can preserve the edit history behind an article redirect if necessary. The Banner talk 21:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query - It is rather odd to have a template for an infobox used in a single article. Is there a good reason why this was done? I note that the infobox appears to be transcluded on a large number of user pages, and that is also unusual. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only transcluded in two user pages, one of which is an 8-year-old draft. Alakzi (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and redirect per Alakzi's rationale above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Alakzi as well. --Izno (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect per above. we don't need to split the infobox from the article. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moxy. The current system has worked well for quite a few years now, and generally acts to limit the drama and encourage editing in the World War II article to be focused on content rather than the infobox (a common problem with infoboxes for high profile military history articles). It's disappointing that Vanjagenije has started this TfD without discussing the matter with people who are familiar with the history here first. I note that Vanjagenije didn't even post a notification of this discussion at Talk:World War II, despite this being their proposed merge target. Given this, I'd suggest that the discussion be relisted rather than be closed when the 7 days expires. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Redirect The infobox contains virtually no information compared to all the other wars or conflicts. Not sure what happened it. Either merge with the page or replace it. Lucasjohansson (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2015 (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:Kim Jonghyun

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 as a navbox that doesn't aid navigation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kim Jonghyun (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Jonghyun did not release enough singles/solo material to have his own template. He is notable for his solo career and has done activities outside of SHINee, but he does not need his own template as of yet. Even Sandara Park who released more singles than him does not have a template of her own yet. We need to wait until he has done few more solo releases before he gets his own template. Until then, it's just simply WP:TOOSOON to have his own template. Tibbydibby (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One single and it doesn't even have an article. Liam987 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination rationale: not enough content to justify a navbox at this time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only has one link to Jonghyun's only album. Not enough content. --Deoma12^(Talk) 06:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination rationale. Mikepellerin^talk 01:22, 28 February 2015 (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:Taemin

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 per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taemin is another one here. He is notable outside of SHINee, but he has not released enough material as of yet for him to have his own template. Maybe if he releases another single or two, then perhaps he can get his own template when the time comes. Until then, I suggest that this template gets deleted for now. Even Sandara Park does not have her own template and she has released a few more singles than him. Tibbydibby (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination rationale. Mikepellerin^talk 01:23, 28 February 2015 (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.