Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 15



Template:Alfred Brendel

 * 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. Currently underpopulated navbox. No prejudice against recreation in the future if/when there are more related articles to navigate. If someone wants to hold onto this in user space for future expansion, just let me know and I'm happy to userfy it for you. RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Only navigates four articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to keep it on a user sub-page until the time comes when there are more. I'm not convinced there is a need for it in any case, but how many articles would we need to justify this kind of template? --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see your point but agree with Robert.Allen in that how many articles are needed to justify it. Also, it doesn't seem right to delete a template that is too small. It is only going to get bigger as more articles are created.-- Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless there is a hard & fast rule about a minimum number of articles, I feel we should keep given Brendel's general notability. Given the several books he's written, there is room for this template to expand with more articles.THD3 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Navboxes are navigational aids, to enable navigation among a large number of related articles.  That raison d'etre does not exist here, at least not yet.  WP:NAVBOX: "A navigation template with fewer than a  handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections, or  relevant main and see also  links within the articles' sections."  That's quite clearly the case here.  The category Category:Alfred Brendel is already doing an admirable job of categorizing this small number of articles. A navbox adds nothing useful here TJRC (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, this is similar to Omamori Himari, being considered for deletion here. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; in this case, it can be easily replaced with a "see also" section for each article it is used on. — Air plane  man — 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are really only two items in the discography. The other links are to the actual discography and to the artist.  For this reason, I would say it can be handled by a "see also" section, and recreated if/when there are more than three items in discography.  Plastikspork (talk) 20:44, 24 March 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:Gramophonedizie

 * 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. Underpopulated navbox. RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Template created for new artist with only one other article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Only one single release, no album, no featured singles, no other releases whatsoever. completely pointless having a template. Mister sparky (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I'd also add Template:Chiddy Bang to this list, also created by the same editor with a history of creating these types of things. - eo (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. One single release does not need a template. I also believe the same editor has created another template incase this one is deleted - Template:Gramophonedzie. - JuneGloom07    Talk?  12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did, I linked to it above, and here is yet another: Template:Josh Dubovie - eo (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Seeing that the template was recreated as Template:Gramophonedzie, I just added it to this existing nomination and both are listed together above. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete but could WP:CSD be applied? anemoneprojectors   talk  17:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's an utterly useless navbox. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  16:45, 18 March 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:Pokemon anime, et. al.

 * 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) 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned, unused templates Ost (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as these templates are orphaned. — Air plane  man — 01:04, 24 March 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:Squote

 * 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) 04:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete Used on two user pages, can be replaced by quote box. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete although this is used on more than just two userpages, its role can be filled with. — Air plane  man — 01:02, 24 March 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.

MTR station lists

 * 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 Substitute and delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Subst and delete Single Low use templates; see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_24 for discussion on the last batch of these. This would clear out Category:MTR station footnote templates. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Based on the "use" links above, most of these have more than one mainspace transclusion, so "single-use template" doesn't seem to apply. --RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. At most three uses, including the main list article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Substitute and delete as they are not widely used but would benefit the few articles they are used in. — Air plane  man — 00:58, 24 March 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:Targa Rallies

 * 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

90% of the contained links listed are red and have been for years. There is no indication the contents will be filled out and many of the component Targa events would struggle to achieve notability as stand alone articles. Falcadore (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I setup this template years ago and would have to agree to the reasons for its proposed deletion. Dozycow (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2010 (AEST)
 * Keep but edit substantially. Based on where this is used, there are enough "Targa" rallies to support a simple navbox. The links for individual years should be removed as they aren't likely to ever be filled in with articles, but a links to a couple of other rallies should be added. With a half-dozen or so links, this should be a viable nav template. --RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if cleaned up. It looks like there are enough (blue) links to justify a navbox. — Air plane  man — 00:56, 24 March 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:WP UCam cite SO

 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

orphaned fork of cite web —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy for this to be deleted; it never got off the ground, and perhaps someone from the UCam WikiProject will come back and do it properly (if it's needed) at some later date. A.C. Norman (talk) 21:05, 17 March 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:TV quote
<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 Speedy delete per author approval, and lack of use Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned template, created in 2006. I think cquote and friends are more consistently used. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I created this four years ago and then forgot about it… it seems everyone else has as well ;-) --bdesham  ★  18:39, 15 March 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:Otheruses8
<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 speedy delete per G7. Magioladitis (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unused and redundant to Otheruses. This one is not even listed in the Dablinks page. Magioladitis (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and as template creator. Template:Otheruses, four months after the fact, can now do what this template did, so axe the latter. I'm a big fan of template consolidation. Just fix extant calls to this template with calls to Otheruses with appropriate parameters.— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:11, 15 March 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.