(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 June 3)
- 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) 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Only two of the players on the template have articles and it is the only draft that has a template. It really serves no purpose. . Yankees10 23:12, 3 June 2009 (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.
- 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 keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary template. Templates for television "markets" and affiliates by state already exsist. Stations are indentified as O&Os or Owned and Operated stations in their beginning paragraph. Template is only used in a handful of pages, so removal will not be disruptive. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or rename. Seems useful and appropriate to have a box showing which stations are directly controlled by a programming network in the USA, though the template name itself could be a bit clearer: it's for all O&Os of major networks, not all network's major O&Os, of course. -- Closeapple ( talk) 07:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I clarified the title, it's now "Owned and operated stations of the main television networks of the United States." ViperSnake151 Talk 22:55, 4 June 2009 (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.
- 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) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Template:CommonsEncouraged ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Another essentially redundant to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. If no delete, then redirect. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. This seems like a useful alternate name for the more common template, but we surely don't need two separate templates. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete Per nom and Gavia immer. Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 01:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. With just 4 transclusions, I don't see any advantage to redirection over deletion. When it comes to templates, too many redirects is more likely to be a source of confusion than of ease of use. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 02:52, 7 June 2009 (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.
- 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) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Essentially redundant to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. If no delete, then redirect. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 05:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. This seems like a useful alternate name for the more common template, but we surely don't need two separate templates. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete Per nom and other user comments. Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. With just 5 transclusions, I don't see any advantage to redirection over deletion. When it comes to templates, too many redirects is more likely to be a source of confusion than of ease of use. –
BLACK FALCON (
TALK)
02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment that's hardly a good reason, since if it were copied to commons, it is likely the page that contained it was subsequently deleted.
70.29.208.129 (
talk)
06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's true, but I meant it in the sense that it would be easy to replace the existing transclusions. In other words, I'm not saying that it should be deleted just because it has few uses, but rather because it is redundant to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and I can see no need for a redirect. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 07:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment that's hardly a good reason, since if it were copied to commons, it is likely the page that contained it was subsequently deleted.
70.29.208.129 (
talk)
06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the template was designed for the same purpose as {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} – instead, it looks like a template for use in article or article talk space to point out that one or more images or other media objects in the article (c|sh)ould be moved to the Commons. Unnecessary in my opinion, and the template is not linked to from any project pages, so I doubt it'll be missed; delete. haz ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (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.
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 June 3)
- 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) 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Only two of the players on the template have articles and it is the only draft that has a template. It really serves no purpose. . Yankees10 23:12, 3 June 2009 (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.
- 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 keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary template. Templates for television "markets" and affiliates by state already exsist. Stations are indentified as O&Os or Owned and Operated stations in their beginning paragraph. Template is only used in a handful of pages, so removal will not be disruptive. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or rename. Seems useful and appropriate to have a box showing which stations are directly controlled by a programming network in the USA, though the template name itself could be a bit clearer: it's for all O&Os of major networks, not all network's major O&Os, of course. -- Closeapple ( talk) 07:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I clarified the title, it's now "Owned and operated stations of the main television networks of the United States." ViperSnake151 Talk 22:55, 4 June 2009 (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.
- 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) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Template:CommonsEncouraged ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Another essentially redundant to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. If no delete, then redirect. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. This seems like a useful alternate name for the more common template, but we surely don't need two separate templates. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete Per nom and Gavia immer. Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 01:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. With just 4 transclusions, I don't see any advantage to redirection over deletion. When it comes to templates, too many redirects is more likely to be a source of confusion than of ease of use. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 02:52, 7 June 2009 (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.
- 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) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Essentially redundant to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. If no delete, then redirect. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 05:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. This seems like a useful alternate name for the more common template, but we surely don't need two separate templates. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete Per nom and other user comments. Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. With just 5 transclusions, I don't see any advantage to redirection over deletion. When it comes to templates, too many redirects is more likely to be a source of confusion than of ease of use. –
BLACK FALCON (
TALK)
02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment that's hardly a good reason, since if it were copied to commons, it is likely the page that contained it was subsequently deleted.
70.29.208.129 (
talk)
06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's true, but I meant it in the sense that it would be easy to replace the existing transclusions. In other words, I'm not saying that it should be deleted just because it has few uses, but rather because it is redundant to {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and I can see no need for a redirect. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 07:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment that's hardly a good reason, since if it were copied to commons, it is likely the page that contained it was subsequently deleted.
70.29.208.129 (
talk)
06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the template was designed for the same purpose as {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} – instead, it looks like a template for use in article or article talk space to point out that one or more images or other media objects in the article (c|sh)ould be moved to the Commons. Unnecessary in my opinion, and the template is not linked to from any project pages, so I doubt it'll be missed; delete. haz ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (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.