Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19

Template:Shore Temple, Mahabalipuram

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 article. If there is a need for it in multiple articles, it can always be split from the article at a later date. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shore Temple, Mahabalipuram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is under expansion of the user page and will use this template. Please retain it.--Nvvchar. 03:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't like templates that are used in only one page though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with article, no need for a stand-alone template when you could just add this to the article directly. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now merged this with Shore Temple. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 29 January 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:Pancha Rathas

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 article. If there is a need for it in multiple articles, it can always be split from the article at a later date. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pancha Rathas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Pancha Rathas is now under developed in our your user page and will be posted on the main page with this template. Appreciate retaining it.--Nvvchar. 03:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with article, no need for a stand-alone template when you could just add this to the article directly. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now merged this with Pancha Rathas. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 29 January 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:Dravidian Architecture

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 article. If there is a need for it in multiple articles, it can always be split from the article at a later date. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dravidian Architecture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article. Doesn't seem worth using elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article which uses this template represents the architecture of Jain religion in Karnataka state and should be retained to maintain completeness of the article.--Nvvchar. 03:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with article, no need for a stand-alone template when you could just add this to the article directly. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now merged this with Architecture of Karnataka. Frietjes (talk) 00:58, 29 January 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:San Sebastian College - Recoletos de Manila

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) 00:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Sebastian College - Recoletos de Manila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

provides very little actual navigation, the university structure should be instead presented in a section in the main article. A link to the athletics team can be provided in the main article as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, defacto 3 navigation links is not enough. Most articles are even linked within the article texts. mabdul 11:02, 24 January 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:Railway Schiphol to Amsterdam Centraal

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) 00:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway Schiphol to Amsterdam Centraal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Railway Den Haag to Leiden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused boilerplate. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

subst at User:Patrick/Public transport connecting to The Hague and then delete. mabdul 06:55, 23 January 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:Infobox Victorian Tourist Railway Station

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) 00:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Victorian Tourist Railway Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaceable by {{Infobox station}} 69.158.92.96 (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is aimed at current tourist stations, the supposed alternative is a bit overkill for this purpose. can anonymous editors with 10 edits nominate for deletion? --Dan027 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But can you give a reason why it should not be replaced? 50.100.192.83 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement, or at the very least, rewrite it as a frontend for {{infobox station}}. and yes, WP is a wiki that "anyone can edit", so we don't discriminate when it comes to IPs. if there were a policy that IPs with only 10 edits cannot nominate templates for discussion, then the page would be semi-protected. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 6 January 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) 00:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after replacement. I believe Infobox station supports all the necessary parameters, even Melway. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after replacement. The only missing parameter that might prove to be useful is RE-OPENED for cases where a station has been closed and repurposed, not just renovated, rebuilt, modernized or temporarily closed. In this case for stations on closed lines which, after a longer period of time, are now used for tourist trains. Sw2nd (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as many other station infoboxes. mabdul 06:25, 23 January 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.