Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

Template:United States uniformed enlisted references

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 both. Ruslik_Zero 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States uniformed enlisted references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:United States uniformed services enlisted members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 23:50, 22 December 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:List of Dish Network HD Channels

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 both. Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Dish Network HD Channels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:List of Dish Network SD Channels 900-9999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Not a template. Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 22 December 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:Eric Darnell

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 Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_31#December_31. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eric Darnell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links three films. WP:NENAN. Even more egregious in that Darnell has only directed DreamWorks Animation projects, which are already included in {{DreamWorks animated films}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:42, 22 December 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:SerbianCultureMarker

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 userfied by author. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only being used in the author's userspace, suggest moving to userspace (without redirect). 134.253.26.12 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont appreciate IP addresses deletion requests., if you are a man you can log in. James Michael DuPont (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if I am a woman? I don't see how that is on topic (see Ad hominem). 134.253.26.12 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close, the author has now moved this template to User:Mdupont/Templates/SerbianCultureMarker, which was my original request to move to userspace. Cheers. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 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:South Georgia at the Commonwealth Games

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 19:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Georgia at the Commonwealth Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only red links. Delete per WP:NAVBOX. Magioladitis (talk) 17:35, 22 December 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:Rochdale Canal and Caldervale Railway

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 userfy to preserve content (to User:P.hogg/Rochdale Canal and Caldervale Railway). Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rochdale Canal and Caldervale Railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could have a use in the future, and it would be tough to make if ever needed. Them From Space 10:54, 21 December 2010 (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) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unused. Yes it may be quite tough to recreate, but considering the size of this, I doubt it would ever be used. Reh man 12:07, 22 December 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:PolishSenateCopyright

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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid, although unused, copyright template. Duplicate of the one we have on commons (which is used). It's easier keeping this now than recreating it in the future (and having to lookup Polish copyright law in the process). Them From Space 11:01, 21 December 2010 (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) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yet another reason why we should enable transclusion of content from Commons faster; reduces a ton of duplicates. No comment on deletion. Reh man 12:09, 22 December 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:Infobox song list

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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox song list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox artist discography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox song list with Template:Infobox artist discography.
These templates appear to do the same thing, so it would seem reasonable to merge them. Of the two, the "song list" template is currently less widely used. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think they do very different jobs and should be kept separate. The only reason the song list infobox hasn't been widely used is because I created it originally as a subpage of my userpage, and it has only just been implemented as a proper infobox, after months of waiting on the proposed infoboxes page which never gets updated! Keep it as a separate template, and it will be more widely used in times to come. Be patient! Andre666 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the song list needs a little reworking, but other than that. They're both distinctly different. it would be good to put it as a "see also" section about it. But they're both quite different.Bread Ninja (talk)

Infobox song list needs some documentation. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some basic documentation, which further shows the similarity. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (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) 00:57, 14 December 2010 (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) 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just rather confused as to why we are creating articles such as List of Muse songs at all?! We already have Muse discography and Category:Muse (band) songs and there are tracklistings on each of the album pages for any songs which aren't mentioned within the discography article. It seems completely unnecessary having a separate "List of X songs" article ... These just duplicate the information which is already in the discography article and on the relevant album pages. We don't need this information again - there's a good reason album tracklistings aren't currently included in discography articles, because they give an overview from which you can then click on the relevant album article to find out more information (including the full track listing). Wikipedia is not a directory, it's not a complete exposition of all possible details, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. And soon there will be thousands of them (there's already quite a few). Has there been any discussion which I've missed as to whether we should be creating these list articles (and also whether we should be doing it for every artist or for every artist with a discography article)? With regards to this nom though, I don't really think the information it provides is particularly useful. For example, who cares how many "Album songs" or "Hidden songs" an artist has released?! The information which might be useful or of interest is already included in the discography template, e.g. Singles, B-sides. Also because this template (and this type of article in general) goes into intricate detail about everything an artist has ever released (and not released - there's an "Unreleased songs" field (I've no idea how you quantify/find reliable sources for how many songs an artist has written but not released...)), then it will need updating very regularly. There are only a few transclusions of it at the moment (I realise it's not long been in template space), and I can't see that this would ever be widely adopted. Editors can't be bothered to add up the number of "Album songs" (and all the others). (Also how do you quantify the number of "Album songs" - does this include bonus tracks? what if the same song is released on more than 1 album - does that count as 1 or 2 songs? how about if a song is re-released (or released in a different country) where the only difference is that it has been mixed slightly differently? what if the same song is released under a different name from one country to another? It's not quite as clear cut as it might seem at first). The template would need constantly updating whenever an album is released, when it is re-released, when released in a different country, when it is released on iTunes and there are extra bonus tracks, when an artist just writes a song, (presumably it then goes in "Unreleased songs" until it is released?!?). Also what are "Other contributions" and what counts as a "Hidden song"? What constitutes, "Special edition songs" - does this include any re-releases or does the re-release have to have the words "Special edition" in it (would it include this "Deluxe version" and would it include this re-release which has just one extra song, and isn't classed as a "Special edition")? But I do think if there hasn't been any discussion with regards to whether we should be creating this type of article in the first place, that definitely needs to happen... Mhiji (talk) 13:40, 22 December 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:Symbolism

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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Unused,~~ no further information given by template creator at request (User talk:Orangemike#Template:Symbolism). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per this, I think this is a recognized template. Rehman 12:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that says that is an official list of official templates. (And I was already aware of that page, that's how I found the template, since that's the only place it's linked from.) The point is ~~this template is obviously not being used anywhere~~, it was created less than a year ago and as far as I can tell has never been used since it was created. The template creator itself did not object to putting it up for deletion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was incorrect about it being unused, it looks like it is transcluded in two articles (I don't know how I thought otherwise, maybe I clicked the "what links here" from the talk page accidentally last time), so I take that back. Regardless, it does seem like an awfully specific template for a rather uncommon editing need, so I'm not sure it's necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:45, 22 December 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.