< February 13 February 15 >

February 14

Template:Infobox papacy

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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox papacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hope I'm not going to the underworld for this, but I'm nominating this template for deletion because it was created in this previous December without any discussion and was only used on the article Pope. I just subst'ed the template and now it has no mainspace transclusions. Frankly, I don't see it needing to be used on any other pages so there's no need for a template used on a single page. — Axem Titanium (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (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.

Music genre hardcodings

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 debate was subst: and delete all. Per the strength of arguments below (notably WP:IBX). The deletion does not remove any content. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well have a consolidated discussion about all of these templates. These are all hardcodings of ((Infobox Music genre)), many of which have only one transclusion, or one legitimate transclusion; there are many instances where these infoboxes are transcluded somewhere they are not appropriate (I've removed several [1][2]). None of the boxes have code so lengthy as to warrant separation from the article, as is perhaps the case with ((elementbox)) and its derivatives. I have excluded ((Christian music)) as it appears to be an exception to this rule, having several legitimate transclusions. If anyone can point out other templates in this selection which are legitimately transcluded several times, I will strike them; most if not all, however, appear to offer no advantage over a direct transclusion of ((Infobox Music genre)), and should all be substituted and then deleted. Happy‑melon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (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:Future election in the United States

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.
Template:Future election in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's excessive and unnecessary. Merge into Template:Future election. —Markles 14:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***I don;t agree on the overcategorization point... however... if automatic categorization is the only concern, couldn't Template:Future election be updated to automatically put Category:Future_elections on it's pages. Wouldn't that be the sensible solution to categorization concerns?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Nevermind.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (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:Reggaetonbox

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 debate was discussion consolidated here. Happy‑melon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reggaetonbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Reggaetónbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Happy‑melon 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful as a template due to low level of transclusion. — Stifle (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (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:techno

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 debate was discussion consolidated here. Happy‑melon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Techno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not useful as a template due to low level of transclusion. — Stifle (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (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:Google images

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 debate was No consensus Happy‑melon 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A deletion request has been added on the Norwegian Wikipedia at no:Wikipedia:Sletting#Mal:Google-bilder. I'd rather see that this deletion discussion also can be done here. Main reason for deletion request is a hypotesis that this linking will mostly add links to illegal copyright material. — Nsaa (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who unadverently started this, after finding such a link at French WP. At first it seemed a good idea, so I imported the link. Then I asked for a Norwegian procedure with a question if this might be a good idea. Obviously it finally was not considered that.
Many results go to irrelevancies, and to give Google a search containing a popular first name like Arnold - oooh! But searches often present results linking to material that clearly is a breach of Norwegian laws regulating works of art, so for us, I think the intention (good) does not defend implementing and using the template on no:WP, because of too high % suspect results. --Bjørn som tegner (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
((#if:((NAMESPACE))|((ns:0))|<span class="messagebox" style="padding: 0; 
font-size: xx-small; color: #000000;">''[[Template:Google]] should not be used in 
articles as Google links are not considered appropriate for an encyclopedia.''
External link templates such as ((Google)), ((Google images)), ((Google custom)), and ((Google help desk)) are not for use in articles; they are for use in talk pages and project pages such as the Help desk, the Reference desk, WikiProjects, etc. The other Google-search-related templates explain this in their documentation, but ((Google images)) does not yet, so I will fix that. Also, see the similar deletion discussion that resulted in "keep": Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_19#Template:Google. --Teratornis (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the template documentation and put it on a new subpage: Template:Google images/doc, in keeping with what seems to be the new style of documenting templates on separate subpages via the ((documentation)) template (subpaging the documentation seems a bit complicated to me, but I can roll with it). --Teratornis (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (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 Stewart (Scotland)

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 debate was Keep, in a modified form. Happy‑melon 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As an exercise in the design of templates which completely and utterly bugger up any real possibility of adding images to an article, and which force succession boxes two or three printed pages of whitespace down the page - see James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray or David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, for example, this template takes the biscuit. Have not its creators looked at what it does to the pages it has been placed on? Have they ever tried to place a right justified image onto an article despoiled by this template? Do we need to know, or care enough to want to see listed in a template all of the the children of all of the Stuart kings? Wither any common sense in the design of templates? For all of these reasons, let us be rid of this useless & ill thought out conceit, or at a bare minimum let someone come along & add some expand/contract wizardry defaulting to contracted, or convert it into a horizontal template to be placed at the foot of articles or, come and take me away, foaming with indignation and utter astonishment to the nearest place of asylum. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (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:Street Fighter anime

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 debate was Merge with Template:Street Fighter series and delete. Happy‑melon 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Street Fighter anime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pretty unnecessary template, and could be merged into Template:Street Fighter series.. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 00:34, 14 February 2008 (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.
More