Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 22



Template:Largest cities of the United Kingdom

 * 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. --BDD (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Largest cities of the United Kingdom

The article it is based on was deleted a few months ago. see this and this Eopsid (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article was deleted due to WP:OR, however this template is sourced from the 2001 Census. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not being used anywhere; if it's sourced, then the information should be put into an article somewhere, it doesn't make sense to keep it in an orphan template. P.S., it's "keep", not "oppose". — Scott • talk 12:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN. Article content masquerading as a navbox. And not that an update would change my view, but a list article in template space based on woefully out of date information is utterly useless. Resolute 14:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not used and not a proper navbox. CRwikiCA  talk 02:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Apart from the other arguments, the information is misleading because of the multiple definitions of the word "city", and inconsistencies in the definitions used to create this template (eg use of a "Greater London" rather than "City of London" figure).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete With the UK falling apart in a few years, there is no need for this outdated, ill-defined template. The Banner talk 16:03, 1 May 2013 (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:Journey (film series)

 * 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. --BDD (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Journey (film series)

WP:NENAN One relevant link does not warrant a nav box The Banner talk 17:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there are 3 links, where did you get 1 from? And there appears to be a likely case that a 4th article will soon be created. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The transcluded articles would be better served by Journey to the Center of the Earth. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 06:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment that makes no sense. How is Journey to the Mysterious Isle or Journey to the Moon about the Center of the Earth? That template needs to be purged of non Center-of-the-Earth material, since it isn't a template for the Voyages Extraordinaires. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no mention of Mysterious Isle or the Moon in the template I pointed to, just a bunch of films based on Journey to the Center of the Earth, which includes links to both of the films in the nominated template. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Journey to the Mysterious Isle is not about journeying to the center of the Earth. And the next film in the series, set for release next year is about a journey to the Moon, even less about anything on Earth. Therefore, senseless to use a Journey to the Center of the Earth template for this film series. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3 films still wouldn't meet the suggested requirements for a navbox per WP:NENAN. This really isn't needed at all. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your suggested replacement template is still inappropriate, whatever the case of this template. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, but make sure there are links in the see also section. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WikiProject Film guidelines: " The number of blue links to related articles should be substantial enough to warrant a navigation template. For example, if a director has only made two films, each film article instead can have a "See also" section linking to the other film article." That logic has applied to film franchises too. I would say that it is possible Journey (film series) should be taken to AfD because the precedent is to have such film series articles when there are at least three films. Here, we have two actual films but one that may or may not happen, so in the spirit of WP:NFF, we should count two, not three. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:36, 3 May 2013 (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 Hindu Temple

 * 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; deleted as T3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox Hindu Temple

Redundant with Template:Infobox temple present. All transclusions converted. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Well everything's been done already to transfer so we may as well. Are we sure this doesn't fall under some form of Template or General CSD? MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 08:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's unused and redundant it's speedyable under T3. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah what the hey, per your advice i've stuck a T3 notice on it. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Acts of Valour) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (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.