Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

Template:Hobart localities

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) 04:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hobart localities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Melbourne localities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

generally redundant to information provided in the infobox, and in the prose. could be turned into a {{hatnote}} or a single line in the see also section, but we don't need a psuedo-navbox for this sort of thing. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly specific boxes. These could all be a single more generalized template usable for many different countries instead of just a single city. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2014 (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:Valur Football Club squad

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) 04:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Valur Football Club squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This does not link enough between enough notable articles and will always be majority redlinks. WP:NENAN. Giant Snowman 20:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has five links but these are swamped by redlinks. League is not fully professional so highliy unlikely this will change. Not really a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AS per Fenix....not a professional league. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2014 (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:Let the Right One In

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 move to Template:John Ajvide Lindqvist. Feel free to renominate the new template if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Let the Right One In (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A tiny template with a mere five links (one is the author's bio) about a book that isn't a franchise and is unlikely to ever spawn more articles. A template on Lindqvist's works makes sense, but not just one book. All of these links are much more appropriately presented in the actual articles. Peter ^Isotalo 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not expand the navbox to include his other works and move it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Be my guest. Peter ^Isotalo 14:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you create a completely new template instead? That version includes non-LetMeIn-related works, then this template could be called redundant, and a new template would not need to deal with this template's discussion at all. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because if the nom had done that in the first place, we wouldn't have needed a deletion discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this template.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:49, 10 February 2014 (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.