Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 18 May 20 >

May 19 edit

Template:MarchCalendar2006B 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) 02:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MarchCalendar2006B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AprilCalendar2006SourceB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed, since we have the more general template:MarchCalendar. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 19 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.

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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Non-free logo}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per above I am migrating usages to {{Non-free logo}} already Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 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:Warriors Queensland Reps 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) 05:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warriors Queensland Reps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Association between articles is far too loose. Having similar navboxes for all QLD & NSW representatives of all clubs would clearly not be worthwhile. Jeff79 (talk) 08:39, 19 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:Instruction Notice 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) 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Instruction Notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-useful, unused section hatnote. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:27, 19 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:SUL 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) 02:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, outdated and unused/orphaned template only meant for a historical page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but this looks completely useless to me. No transclusions either. Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 19 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:Coronation Street episodes 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coronation Street episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rather baffled by this one, even moreso that it's been used for so long. The number of episodes can easily be kept updated on the Coronation Street article, rather than relying on one editor (it seems) to update this template. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it exists quite simply because of the issues we had prior to creating it, whereby the page would be updated very frequently for the matter of something very trivial. I for one only care about meaningful changes that appear in my watchlist; the template means the Coronation Street article is more likely only going to be edited for something meaningful (except vandalism of course). The fact Ooh, Fruity notes the template has been used for so long unchallenged, must support, to some extent, justification for it's existance? I would vote Keep but I don't know if that'd be seen as being bias. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only used in one page. Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • i am not seeing anything in the keep rational that rings very valid. "its been here forever" is just about as non-reason as you can get. to keep one persons watch list from being bothered also seems like a non reason.Active Banana (bananaphone 02:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it is transcluded only once, it is a template that is bound to be frequently updated. I know a lot of such templates: There are scores of software articles which keep their version numbers outside the article itself because they are frequently updated. If this template is updated once a week, then it is good reason to keep it (as well the torrent of changes that come to it) out of the main article. Fleet Command (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this should be kept so people know how many episodes there has been. Tony (talk) 15:52, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_19&oldid=1141473069"