Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 13

< May 12	May 14 >

May 13

Template:Infobox Kosovo War

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 subst and delete. In order to preserve attribution, I have copied the page history of the template to Talk:Kosovo War#Page history for 'Template:Infobox Kosovo War'. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Kosovo War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:CONTENTFORK; used on one page; references can be used on prose in article if needed and vice versa consolidating and improving references through an exchange; replaceable by parent template {{Infobox military conflict}}Curb Chain (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is this a template? How could it ever be used in multiple articles? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above; why is this a template? Except to offer a pov-fork (and, alas, the edit history looks like other kosovo articles in that respect) there's no point in it being here. bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Angaet Group

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) 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angaet Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one one bluelink and one transclusion, nothing to navigate between. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Taking into account the lack of related articles and the fact that Angaet Group still is a red link, this template appears to be rather premature. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:37, 21 May 2012 (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:Geographical locators

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) 03:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geographical locators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Newly related morass of barely-related links to disambiguation pages; creator appears disinclined to follow policy at WP:INTDABLINK, thereby causing major headaches for the disambiguation project. Unless this template can be made to conform with disambiguation policy, it should be deleted. bd2412 T 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Template is pointless. PK T(alk) 18:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All-in-one template that doesn't work because of too many (loosely related) items. It is also mainly used on disambiguation pages which is discouraged per WP:MOSDAB#Images and templates. (Especially this big). LittleWink (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reasons noted above, this template is not useful for navigation because it is based on adjectives, while Wikipedia article titles are nouns. Just because something is "northern" or "southern" does not mean that it is necessarily related in any meaningful way to other things that happen to be described with the same adjective. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:30, 14 May 2012 (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.