Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

February 16[edit]

Template:Mr. Money in the Bank[edit]

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mr. Money in the Bank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Achievement not notable enough to warrant a navigation template. TJ Spyke 20:42, 16 February 2010 (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:Tay Dizm[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tay Dizm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for minor artist; not enough links to justify GlassCobra 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough strongly related articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (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:Dire Straits tineline[edit]

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dire Straits tineline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overcomplicated template. Would require ~~10+~~ at least six templates in this manner to cover band's career. The discography page and artist navbox surely suffice over this attempt. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It enough simple also was is taken from an automobile theme. It is necessary to connect albums, rounds, singles and TV-show.--Andrey! 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) write: Overcomplicated template.

Overcomplicated? Explain why.--Andrey! 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's overcomplicated because you are covering three years per template (presumably, you will be creating more), which is more simply covered all inclusively in the Dire Straits template (members, albums, singles). There are pages on the group's discography and membership that provide the details more concisely than a sequence of navigational boxes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion to me is clear. But the discography and the general template do not specify connection between the events which have occurred at the same time (video, interview, etc). Besides at localisation there is a possibility to specify important for this period events and related articles (for example, The Old Grey Whistle Test).--Andrey! 10:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template has turned out long because I wished to show nenbers change between albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has called into question this idea, and probably term it is necessary to reduce to one album. Someone else wishes to express on this theme?--Andrey! 10:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At three years per template, there would be almost a dozen of these! It's just too over-detailed and redundant to other ways of representing the band's history. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you saw a template? Three days only one album in it.--Andrey! 07:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question/comment. I did look at the template, if that's what you are asking. --RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And than then to connect articles of one chronological period (album)?--Andrey! 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry again, but I can't make sense out of the questions you are asking. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (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.