Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 29

< December 28	December 30 >

December 29 edit

Template:Non-free use rationale historic 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) 05:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free use rationale historic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is now seemingly unused, and was already deprecated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD:T3. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:24, 7 January 2013 (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 AU Legislation 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AU Legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly the same parameters as {{Infobox legislation}}, so could easily merged. Moreover it uses bad styled HTML code instead of any wikimarkup. mabdul 19:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2013 (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:Funnyordie 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) 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template that would only be used in very, very rare circumstances and even recommends no one use it. Odie5533 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons stated above. JB82 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. External link templates should only be necessary when it's okay to link numerous articles to a certain website. The opposite seems to apply here. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (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:Humble Bundle 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) 05:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Humble Bundle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I believe the template falls under WP:NOTCATALOG. Also, WP:NAVBOX says that the article should refer to each other, and they should refer to the subject of the template. Humble Bundles are a nice sale, but not every video game needs to mention they were once sold in a humble bundle, and they would rarely if ever discuss the other games in the bundle on the page about one game. Amazon/Steam/GMG run indie bundles as well, but I don't think we should have a template for every one. Odie5533 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much better suited as categories or a list. --Conti|✉ 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not so much as a catalog issue (the promotions have been highlighted, and they are limited time scenarios, as opposed a vendor offering products), but I would follow the same logic that was outlined in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 7 Xbox Summer of Arcade deletions, which the rest of the nom's argument captures - there's not much cross discussion between games that are part of the same bundle thus not really a good navbox. Their inclusion in a HB is usually notable (in particularly, this usually assures Mac and Linux ports) so that's a notable fact to be included in the game article but the template's not needed for this (a category, otoh...) --MASEM (t) 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is true this was a good categorization some time ago, especially with only indie bundles, but now it has gotten to the point of regular releases and not really that much worthier than generic store catalogs. Successful and unique indie used to be the determining factor, but we seem to be well beyond that (except things like Android/Linux ports). Agree with nom and Masem. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasonings provided by Masem and Odie5533, the nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large and unwieldy, it does not serve the original purpose of easing navigation. As pointed out, other methods exist to navigate between Humble Bundle games. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (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.