Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 9

< November 8	November 10 >

November 9 edit

Template:Nevermind edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a template for an album. How many other albums have a template? We don't need a teplate for an album, especially for the fact that there is a track listing navigation box at the bottom of each infobox. . — Thundermaster367 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's on a number of articles, but they all relate to the album. Besides, anyone that needs to know what tracks are on the album this badly can simply go over to the album's article itself. --tennis man 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep after realization as written below. --tennis man 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Assuming all the songs have articles, its a perfectly valid navigational box. Yeah, somebody could just go to the album's article, but why should they have to? We should be making information more accessible, not less.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that may make sense, seeing as the template is only present on articles for songs on the album, but also, it's only on the song articles. Meaning that a brows-er could simple click the "next song" or type the name of the song for which they are looking. --tennis man 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you're saying is untrue. Thing is, there's some other way to get to any article, anywhere. The whole point of navboxes is that they make it easier to do so. How is making information more accessible possibly a bad thing?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Good point there. I kind of forgot the whole "encyclopedia for the masses" thing there for a sec. --tennis man

Keep The majority of the songs did "chart", so they're legit under inclusion criteria for WP:SONGS. Adequate navigational tool to get through them all. SkierRMH 19:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legitimate template per too much precedent. Doczilla 07:56, 12 November 2007 (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:Admin-delete edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userlinks template with: talk/contribs/deletions. Unused, not linked to. Not particularly useful. — WjBscribe 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If a template falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? In this case, no. (Meaning being that it's unused, so no one will care if deleted. --tennis man 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused, and not really useful.SkierRMH 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused. Doczilla 07:56, 12 November 2007 (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:Han emperor edit

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Template:Chinese Emperor, so this is useless. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two templates serving the same purpose are useless. --tennis man 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deprecated & redundant to Chinese Emperor. SkierRMH 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roxi2 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant template. Doczilla 07:57, 12 November 2007 (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.