Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 17

October 17

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. Airplaneman 20:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game companies of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In line with the arguments and discussion set out at Wikipedia talk:VG#Ridiculous Template. In short: "Given that all this is rolled up, how is this any better than the Category:Video game companies of the United States link at the bottom?". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:10, 17 October 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.
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 Speedy delete.

Template:Sonny with a Chance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating template again. It links only to 5 articles, all of which are already linked through the main article. This is the third time that the template is nominated for the same reason. LoЯd ۞pεth 11:49, 17 October 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.
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. Airplaneman 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Proud Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Small template with only 4 links, all of them linked from the main article. Not everything is a navbox. LoЯd ۞pεth 11:41, 17 October 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.
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. Airplaneman 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mayday NavBox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is very trivial and is not helpful for readers. -- d'oh! [talk] 09:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Navbox that links articles based on a trivial relationship. Because of the triviality of the connection, this template is and will likely continue to be excluded from the linked articles. Since the purpose of navigation templates is to link related articles, and this one doesn't, it is useless and should be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 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.
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. Airplaneman 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-MNEGov/Crnogorski (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

subpage of {{PD-MNEGov}}; no reason to have a template in another language on en.wp. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:32, 17 October 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.
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 Substitute and delete, this template is indeed only transcluded on one page, which is in turn transcluded on a few pages. Hence, merging this template with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ will not cause any information to be lost. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete: this doesn't belong in templatespace — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to be transcluded on multiple pages. I personally don't care whether it's in the mainspace or the subspace of Talk:Muhammad. It can be improved appearance-wise if having it as text rather than a box is a bother. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple tranclusions are chain transclusions. (FAQ transcludes it directly, FAQ is transcluded on other pages) — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator hasn't explained why it doesn't belong in template space. It is a useful template for transcluding on user talk pages, as the Talk:Muhammad page gets numerous complaints from Muslims who are offended by ancient Muslim artist depictions of Muhammad. It could be reformatted to look more like a template and less like an article, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. The template is just text and has only one use, which is on Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. The text can be substituted into that page. Keeping a separate, single-use template for just this text seems unnecessary and it complicates that editing of the FAQ page. --RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 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.