Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 21



Template:The Best Years

 * 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 with author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A navigation template for which there are only two articles - the article about the series itself and one of the episodes. An unnecessary template. Active Banana (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not useful. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 03:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just delete it. DiamondMonster (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:D 400 highway

 * 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) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Navbox listing towns that have no connection other than all being served by D400. Serves no real purpose, causes clutter. If someone wants to browse the cities that D400 serves, they'd probably be looking at the D400 page already, which has links to all the towns. Also, a link to D400 would probably be included when discussing the transportation infrastructure in each town article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appreciate that editor was well-intentioned, but I agree that this is clutter. Student7 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with other commenters that this template is of limited usefulness and just causes more clutter. Brian Powell (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Attempts to link multiple articles by a non-defining attribute. Resolute 02:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Being the creator of the template I can’t be impartial in this discussion. But I’ll try. The settlements in this template all have similar characteristics. Fertile but insufficient agricultural land, mostly blue-flag beaches, historical ruins and high expectations in tourism. Landscape allows only a limited no. of airports . So they depend on Datça Mersin highway. (except for two important centers Antalya and Mersin) . I thought this feature was enough for grouping these in a template. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Spriggan

 * 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) 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

After a series of merge and AfDs, this template is no longer needed. Only contains 5 links including the series name, its two authors, and two character lists. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This few links can easily be linked by a see also section, thus eliminating the need for the navbox. G.A.S talk 12:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.

Major Routes in various Virginia localities

 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Limited usefulness for all of these templates of major highways in specific Virginia localities. Further, adding templates for each independent city or county to every article would cause significant clutter in the articles. Brian Powell (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with deleting individual templates. The current browse-by-number scheme is what, IMO, extremely limited in it's usefulness. The templates allow the reader to browse routes that he's interested in by geographic region.
 * Also, this template has been around for quite some time. Why delete it now? --Tim Sabin (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in browse-by-region, it seems like an article would perhaps be a better way of handling that than stacking multiple navboxes at the tail end of each route page. The county articles (such as Loudoun County, Virginia) already have "major highways" sections in them that serve the same purpose.


 * I just noticed this template last night when I saw you made another similar template. I'm actually in favor of deleting them all and will be adjusting this entry to reflect that. Brian Powell (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That Fairfax County template has been around for a long time - at least 5 years. You do realize, don't you, that if you succeed in getting these templates deleted, that you will have to do a lot of cleanup?
 * These templates are not just in Virginia. I noticed them in Maryland and DC on the Capital Beltway page. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fairfax County template was created in June 2008. That's less than 2 years, but frankly the longevity of the template is irrelevant. Brian Powell (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all. It is established precedent that state highway system templates are deleted, for reasons that apply to county highway navigational templates too. These take up a lot of space and add little value to the article; if someone wishes to navigate from one highway to another in the county, they should be able to go to the county article and look at the "Transportation" section to find a list of all routes in the county. Failing that, something like List of highways in Hamilton County, New York could be created, which is more expressive and helps people find the road they want. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Clutter, minimal value to articles. Resolute 02:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Information can be covered in the respective county articles, or if appropriate a list article. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.