Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

October 21

Template:Cite pmid/PMC29349

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, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite pmid/PMC29349 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion as G6 with custom rationale of, "This is an invalid PMID, unused sub-page." I wasn't comfortable deleting it out of hand, but would rather put it through the process. I expect that this will be uncontroversial, but I want to make sure it goes through the process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it is not a valid PMID, there is no way this template could ever be used except in error AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how did it get created, since it's an invalide PMID? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 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:Beach Cricket Tri-Nations 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The result of the discussion was delete, as it appears to have been replaced by other navigational methods. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beach Cricket Tri-Nations series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary nav box, given there are only four articles it is relevant to. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 15:39, 21 October 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:Glassheart track listing

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, per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Glassheart track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serves no navigational purpose in only one article. If additional singles are released which warrant articles, the {{Leona Lewis}} template will serve the purpose of navigation between such songs. To get the full track list of the album, one simply can navigate to Glassheart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have linked "Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii song)", "Glassheart (song)" and "Colorblind (Leona Lewis song)". More singles will be released anyway, so more linked articles, which will only result in re-creation. I've updated "Glassheart" and "Colorblind" to have this in the info box too. AARON• ^TALK 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep templates like this serve for more than just navigation - they inform about the sequencing of the album. There are now four tracks which have individual articles thus I find the idea that there is "no navigational purpose" slightly absurd. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sequencing of the album is what the album article is for. For each song article, there's really no connection between what track 5 is and what track 11 is. Linking to and from other tracks from the album may be useful when most or all of the songs have articles; otherwise, the better venue for navigation is {{Leona Lewis}}. That's why templates like {{Born This Way}} got deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the precise track sequence is relatively unimportant, and to connect the songs we have a navbox and sequential single links. this is a third type of navigation, which is simply redundant. Frietjes (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only the album article requires a track listing, which obviates the need for a template for such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Personally I find it useful and interesting to have the tracklisting available, I like being able to see where a song fits into an album. Sanders11 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the {{Leona Lewis}} navigational template and other methods of navigation. –anemone projectors– 16:49, 25 October 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:Hot cocoa

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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hot cocoa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

distinction between this and Template:Chocolate beverages is not worth having 2 templates for. some of these drinks are also served cold. (i added all these drinks to Chocolate beverages prior to this nomination, i know that depopulating is very bad form prior to discussions, i hope that this type of "merge" is not bad form as well) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom. I'd say "delete", but it needs to be kept for merger history. I should point out though, whenever you merge content, it is vital that you link to the article in the summary, for GFDL/CC history. I made an empty edit so I could leave a note there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. i dont add enough info to my edit summaries, so this is a very good thing to remember.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:06, 24 October 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.