Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18 edit

Template:Chrome Entertainment 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 as not useful Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrome Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two of the links are redirects, and a navbox isn't really needed to link the remaining articles together. Random86 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A record label is not really a distinct relationship between artists on such label. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:49, 22 January 2015 (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:Books by Dennis Adonis 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Books by Dennis Adonis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is only one book on this list that has its own Wikipedia page, making the template rather pointless. All these books are self-published, and the only book to have its own page is non-notable and will almost certainly have its page deleted (currently under discussion). The deletion of the author himself is also currently under consideration. Even if both book and author are retained, also having a template for this person is clearly overkill. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. prat (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (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:Pegida participants in Dresden edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to user:PanchoS/Pegida for the time being. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pegida participants in Dresden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content in template space, only one transclusion. Should be subst'd back into Pegida. NSH002 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. The reasons for this template (see template history) aren't covered by template guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak agree to delete. It would probably make more sense to make this a sub-page of the article, to keep all the code out of the article itself, just for ease of editing. If that's not possible, I think I'd prefer to see a single-use template than an article that's much more difficult for less-experienced editors to work on. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Owen that a subpage makes more sense. Moving the template to a subpage per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Can be closed if noone objects. --PanchoS (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that (in contrast to de:wp) sub-pages aren't allowed in mainspace on en:wp, although they are allowed on (most?) other namespaces. This doesn't mean that you can't have a "/" in the name, just that it is not a sub-page.

Please also note that it is very bad practice to move the subject of a deletion discussion before the discussion has concluded, since it complicates both the discussion and the work required of the closing admin.

The argument about ease of editing is weak. Firstly because if we accepted it, we would have hundreds of thousands of templates consisting of nothing more than article content; secondly, the ugly coding is still there, just in a different place - the result is not much different from using section editing. It is also open to you to remove the citation template clutter using list-defined references.

-- NSH002 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2015 (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:Reflist-ontalk 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 as an unneeded remnant of a bygone era. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reflist-ontalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is is a template that should never have a valid reason to be used. Reference lists should not be on talk pages. If there are valid references, add them to the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as confusing and useless as long as references should be inline —PC-XT+ 08:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This template has been orphaned from its only use in Cubic mean by an author of that article. —PC-XT+ 07:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some very old articles (ie. pre-template-era) have references on the talk page. Though I don't think it's a very useful template, as the articles most likely have been rewritten many times since. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are occasions where we'll want lists of references on a Talk: page (using Template:Talkquote), but only when discussing those references. If they're citations for the article, they should be on the article itself. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2015 (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.