Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 4



Template:Miss A

 * 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) 23:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

With only four links, this navigational template is really not needed. エムエックスさん 話  23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, but not because of the number of links as such. I can see that if there are four "sibling" articles then four might justify a navbox. However, this particular navbox has four degrees of freedom (four groups) with one article in each – the article Miss A in the title, and one article in each of "Singles", "Promotional songs", and "Related articles". All of these would seem easily covered in the articles thmselves, and a group of generic "related articles", even if it had more than one member, does not really belong in a navbox at all. The group (Miss A) surely can and should link to the songs and vice versa. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 8 August 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:Hong Kong League Selection squad

 * 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. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This template is for Hong Kong XI which is not national team or club team and it is so insignificant that the squad is for a friendly. Hoising (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. – PeeJay 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The navbox seems well populated and I am not convinced that the squad itself is not notable. Many football teams have squad navboxes, and I suppose it comes down to whether the friendly team is notable itself (something I can't judge) and also whether it constitutes a team in the conventional sense. Why would the friendly squad differ substantially from the national squad? Obviously both change over time, but are there different criteria for selection or what? Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 8 August 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.

Petrol station signs

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)



Unnecessary templates as it would be quicker to just type out the link (e.g., Esso). I suggest deletion after replacement/substitution. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete if I'm not mistaken, these templates once all consisted of the logo graphic and the link, but the logos were removed for violating fair-use policy. The remainder of the template is best done as a simple wikilink.  Imzadi  1979   →   22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete It's just a simple wikilink. Train2104 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Substitute and delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete with prejudice as an unused template with redlinks, and  as a template with redlinks. Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 8 August 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.

Fast food signs

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)



Unnecessary templates as it would be quicker to just type out the link (e.g., McDonalds). I suggest deletion after replacement/substitution. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete if I'm not mistaken, these templates once all consisted of the logo graphic and the link, but the logos were removed for violating fair-use policy. The remainder of the template is best done as a simple wikilink.  Imzadi  1979   →   22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete It's just a simple wikilink. Train2104 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete. I think these are used mostly on the Malaysian roads articles. For one thing, they're misnamed (should be singular). I agree they should go. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They're only used on four or five articles each (except for McDonalds). Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 8 August 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:Dopamine reuptake inhibitors

 * 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 <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Unused navbox. The three links are included in Template:Dopaminergics. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree. In fact, there are a great many other links that should be in this template, as there are a great many notable reuptake inhibitors, but it's just much more useful to include them in the Dopaminergics template, and not bother with this separate one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 4 August 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:Mario Kart racing vehicle
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I am a huge fan of Mario Kart (I still play Super Mario Kart to this day), I don't think this template is necessary simply because I can find no proof that any of the playable characters are even named to this extent. They're usually just named as their normal characters (Mario, Luigi, Toad, etc.) Speaking of Toad, the reason I stumbled upon this template is because it is being used in the article Toad Kart, which is currently at AfD. (I !voted for a redirect to Mario Kart for that). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary template which links to unsourced documents.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 07:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per JBsupreme. Rehman(+) 07:32, 4 August 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:Infobox UK power station
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK power station with Template:Infobox power station.

The UK template mainly duplicates the more general template. There is no specific reason to maintain a separate template for the UK power stations while all other power stations are using an unified infobox. Beagel (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Merge seems reasonable. Don't see why it should stay separate. Rehman(+) 06:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: It is reasonable but I like the map function of the UK template, and merging will probably mean replacing all of the templates, when I reckon more pages use the UK template than the general one. But I do support the merge for a general template. Fintan264 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge the benefits of both and deploy to all of the articles involved. There are automated techniques available to handle updating the articles, so I wouldn't worry about that angle.  Imzadi  1979   →   23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge, for standardisation and to avoid redundancy. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge as a random sampling didn't show any of the UK-specific fields in use. If they are used, it is likely only on a very few and so can be merged with the article body.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:57, 7 August 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.