Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

May 28 edit

Template:Infobox Canadian provincial political party 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 Merge. Clear consensus. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian provincial political party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Canadian political party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Canadian provincial political party with Template:Infobox Canadian political party.
The provincial template is unnecessary as many of the fields required for provincial parties are in the main political infobox. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. I don't think there are much differences. Why are they not getting merged into Template:Infobox political party? 117Avenue (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge All fields in the provincial infobox are in the canadian infobox. DigitalC (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for 117Avenue: Same reason that there's a Template:Infobox Australian political party etc. Because each has its own differences, and having a Canadian one cuts down on the work you need to do for each article, and standardizes it.. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:11, 29 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:Open Season films 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) 01:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open Season films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Majority of the links are to redirects. Template creator has a history of creativing multiple versions of this, as well as false/hoax article relating to the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one transclusion, not the sense of a nav-template. mabdul 10:27, 3 June 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:English 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) 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is only used on a couple of dozen talk and user pages, not in the mainspace at all. Its benefit on those pages is insignificant and its continued presence encourages the unnecessary linking of English language in articles (I've recently removed it from several hundred articles - mostly films and TV programmes - without any objections). Colonies Chris (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been willing this redundant template to be deleted for some time. Per Colonies Chris. Tony (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Seems pointless. --John (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I was notified about this, but... sure. Since it's not used in the mainspace I see no reason not to delete it. *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about that myself. Colonies Chris, you notified 10 editors about this discussion, how did you choose them?. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone listed in the template's edit history. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if that's what it was, but I couldn't remember ever touching that template, and I had checked before replying here. Seeing this as the reason though, I looked again, and I see that I commented on the talk page once. I don't remember it, but... whatever. No harm, no foul. I don't necessarily agree with the reason that it's been removed from use within the article namespace, but this is something that I'm unwilling to argue over. Since it's unused in the article namespace now there's really no reason to keep it around.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If memory serves, I made the thing (as User:Ed Fitzgerald; see [1]), but since there's been a concerted effort to remove it from film infoboxes (the purpose I created it for), I bow to the inevitable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Question: Would this affect Template:lang-en in any way? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, it won't. Delete as redundant. We still have Template:lang-en to deal with translations of foreign-language material. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! mabdul 10:30, 3 June 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:House of Blues locations 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) 00:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:House of Blues locations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is utterly pointless, as this only links cities where a restaurant exists, not an actual "House of Blues in XYZ city" article. If this template stands, it would set a precedent for every chain restaurant to have such a template, which would flood the city articles. Beyond that, it's not very useful; not much more is gleaned from this template that would otherwise be served with a list of locations. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they linked to articles about the establishments at the various location, it might be different. As it stands, the navigational template is entirely misleading and pointless. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have my doubts that each HOB restaurant is notable enough to have its own article. DigitalC (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally useless template has it only lists locations where branches operate. This would set a precedent of an overpopulation of templates if this was allowed to exist.Curb Chain (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Has also only 3 transclusions!) mabdul 10:35, 3 June 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:Featured picture 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) 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Featured picture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be entirely redundant to {{POTD protected}} and serves no other purpose, with little to no transclusions in WhatLinksHere. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely redundant. Featured Picture includes a border and background. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no important transclusions(a few userpages only). mabdul 10:40, 3 June 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.