Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 31

< March 30	April 1 >

March 31 edit

Template:Groundbreaking submarines 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Groundbreaking submarines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per comments on discussion here; largely because the template seems to be inherently subjective. On top of this, the items placed on the template appear to have been chosen largely on a whim, with no real criteria set out for determining what "groundbreaking" means.Jhbuk (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Template:Waterbreaking submarines and include all submarines. Just kidding. Delete per nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template seems entirely subjective with no criteria set out. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective as subjective can be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.255.103 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 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:Groundbreaking destroyers 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Groundbreaking destroyers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per comments on discussion here; largely because the template seems to be inherently subjective. On top of this, the items placed on the template appear to have been chosen largely on a whim, with no real criteria set out for determining what "groundbreaking" means.Jhbuk (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template seems entirely subjective with no criteria set out. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely subjective listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.60.112.134 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to have been created on a whim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.255.103 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 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:Progress Party MPs 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Progress Party MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NAVBOX, I reckon that this template falls short of the reasons for having a navbox: "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" and "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value" (my emphasis). Not used in any article. Geschichte (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the one who created the template, but soon realized that this kind of template was not appropriate. I therefore removed it from the Progress Party article it was originally in, and rather created the more appropriate List of Progress Party (Norway) MPs (based on the British Labour Party version). -TheG (talk) 15:50, 31 March 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:User dislikes semitic one god religions 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Wrong venue. Closing here and moving to WP:MFD, which is where userboxes are supposed to be discussed. The new discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions. RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:User dislikes monotheistic religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:User dislikes institutional religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete all three as WP:SPA created templates that are blatant examples of inappropriate and divisive soapboxing.

Delete per nom and per my rationale in the CFD. Divisive; WP is not a battleground. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:UBX#Content restrictions: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." - htonl (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete SPA and divisive, although I thought userboxen went to MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I never knew that. Thanks. Will remember for next time. Cheers --Jubilee ♫clipman 16:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do go to MFD. Since this just opened today, I'm going to close this and create a page for it there. --RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 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 road/ADHS/shield 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox road/ADHS/shield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary subtemplate after ADHS merger Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. ---Dough 48 72 01:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - content = "none". CSD? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the main infobox will take an argument of "marker_image=none" and skip the graphic entirely. Since these corridors don't have a separate marker graphic, this told the infobox not to attempt to display one. Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 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 road/ADHS/link 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox road/ADHS/link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox road/ADHS/abbrev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox road/ADHS name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox road/ADHS main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox road/ADHS links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox road/ADHS browse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary subtemplate after ADHS merger Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. ---Dough 48 72 01:11, 31 March 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:ADHS 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The constituent articles of the template have been merged into the parent article. Three remaining articles will be merged once they are summarized down in size, in the next day or so. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. ---Dough 48 72 01:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a stupid merge. Undo. --NE2 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't follow this. What happened, where, why? I presume the above noms are all related to this one? If so, how? I can't see any discussion at either Talk:Appalachian Development Highway System or Template talk:ADHS. Any where else I should be looking? Further clarification needed. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Rockland_County_Scenario_for_Appalachian_Development.3F – T M F 03:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having read the discussion linked by TMF, above, I can see how this template—a navbox linking together the corridors of the Appalachian Development Highway System—has become redundant. Basically, almost all of the articles on those corridors (A, B, C, etc) have been merged into that main article: see that article's history. Only a small number of the corridors now have articles of their own and these are easily linked from the main article without need for a 'box. The consensus does seem to favour that merger, BTW. The related deletion requests, above, also seem to follow logically from all this but I don't feel I need to comment on those clear deletion candidates. Thanks for the pointers, TMF --Jubilee ♫clipman 04:01, 31 March 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.