Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29

Template:Infobox chef

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 rewrite as a wrapper. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox chef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should either be merged into {{Infobox person}}, be made a wrapper for it, or instances should be replaced as a module of that template, per discussion in 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per that discussion, the wrapper already exists: {{infobox chef2}} should be resurrected and moved to {{infobox chef}}, with the former moving to {{infobox culinary career}} or the like and marked as a child-only template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone explain the benefit of this proposal? I don't understand why there are three options and the linked discussion is not all that helpful.- MrX 19:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See Templates of Redundancy Templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with making infobox chef a wrapper per best/common practice.- Mr X 17:33, 11 May 2014 (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:Rainbow Books

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 no consensus. I would suggest continuing the discussion elsewhere. If you want to rewrite one, and redirect the other, and there is support to do so, the just do it! But, I don't see any real consensus here about what to do. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rainbow Books (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Compact disc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Rainbow Books with Template:Compact disc.
Template:Rainbow Books is nearly a subset of the recently created Template:Compact disc template. Conquerist (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the creator of the CD template, I can reformat the template to accept Rainbow Books as an integral listing in it pretty easily. (I'd need to strip the partial list of rainbow books out of list 1, and give them their own row, which can be seen (the new row) if you preview the commented out section as being live) ; If these are merged, the RB template should become a redirect -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This merge request isn't clear as to the direction of the intended merge. As 'compact disc' is, by far, the better known terminology, this should take priority. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that many topics on the CD template are not related to the Rainbow Books, it wouldn't make sense to merge it to the RB template. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed Conquerist (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is very difficult to decide what to do here. From the one side the templates can be merged because rainbow books are part of compact disc. But from the other side the templates can remain separate because for ordinary people rainbow books do not make any sense, but compact disc makes a lot. Nicolas Love (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2014 (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.

RAF aircraft by user navboxes

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 relisted on 2014 May 11 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RAF Tornado Squadrons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RAF Nimrod Squadrons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RAF Tutor Squadrons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RAF Typhoon squadrons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Editnotices/Page/Caillou

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) 05:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Caillou (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looking through recent vandalism at the article in question, it appears that this particular message is no longer necessary. It is also an (admittedly minor) annoying intrusion when editing the article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless and unfriendly towards new users.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That too. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2014 (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:Lion-stub

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 G7 by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lion-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems familiar, as if it has been discussed somewhere a while ago. Maybe it was a different animal stub. I found this one had problems, and cleaned it up, but it appears to be unused. —PC-XT+ 05:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author put it up for speedy deletion. —PC-XT+ 06:05, 29 March 2014 (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.