Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 15

< May 14	May 16 >

May 15 edit

Template:NYCS Culver IND north local construction 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS Culver IND north local construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary template. It will be absolutely useless once the Manhattan-bound side of the Culver Viaduct reopens next week. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Canvassed. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the canvassing (which was a bad idea Ranger), it's still a useless template. Not only is the construction a temporary condition that is expiring soon, length of the template's plain text compared to the name of the template makes it just as easy to add the text manually. Completely pointless. oknazevad (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So obviously useless that any canvassing makes no difference. Quite frankly, the canvassing is understandable given that it can take a relisting just to get one or two supports for a delete. And why isn't there a speedy category for such obviously worthless templates (and worthless redirects, come to think of it)? Miracle Pen (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jim.henderson (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other templates already exist for this section of line, duplication not necessary. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 18 May 2011 (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:Logo rationale 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 no consensus to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Logo rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{logo fur}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep - there are 2 different styles of these templates, those which require substitution, and those which don't. I personally prefer the substitution style, as this allows the wording to be easily customized. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they're completely different. --Σ _☭^★ 02:56, 17 May 2011 (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:Politicalposter 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seemingly unused redirect to {{Non-free poster}} license tag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, political posters are non-free, so therefore the redirect makes perfect sense. --Σ _☭^★ 02:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close as wrong venue, you are looking for WP:RFD. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2011 (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:Non-free Blu-ray Disc rationale 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Blu-ray Disc rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to use of {{film cover fur}} with {{Non-free video cover}}. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2011 (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 music subgenre 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) 03:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox music subgenre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was already tagged CSD as a duplicate of Template:Infobox music genre, and the CSD was declined for the reason that it isn't the same. However, I feel the edit summary of that decline wasn't a good reason in and of itself: that this sub-genre template produced a "rather different output". This "rather different output" isn't really all that different. The only change is an addition of a "notable artists" parameter (see this screenshot for code difference). This parameter could easily have been added to the original genre template. In a way, it feels the parameter was also added as a means of "validation"; in other words, a long list of notable artists would validate the existence of that sub-genre (I am not implying that it is currently being used in this manner). I would also like to point out that the template was created in November 2008, but the template is only used on three articles—I'm not sure how valid this is of an argument, but I thought I would bring it up. In addition, a sub-genre is, in a manner of speaking, a genre. This template and its documentation fail to explain or define what a sub-genre is and how it differs from a regular genre, and when this template should be used outside of a "genre", and my argument is supported by Wikipedia's own sub-genre and subgenre pages, which are redirects to Genre, where the term "sub-genre" is only mentioned twice, and in passing, and not clearly defined. Finally, this sub-genre template includes the sub-genre parameter; does this mean there should also be a sub-sub-genre template for those genres listed? The point is, this template is redundant and unnecessary. So I propose that the "notable artists" parameter be incorporated into Template:Infobox music genre, and this sub-genre template be deleted. If the genre template is used for a sub-genre, then the sub-genre parameter could be coded to point to the parent genre. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Template removed from usage on articles as discussed at Template talk:Infobox music genre. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:51, 24 May 2011 (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.