Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 3

June 3

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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two transclusions in articles one transclusion in an article; can be replaced by {{HK-MTR stations}}. (No performance issues with large number of transclusions of latter since it uses a module.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Useddenim (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox consists solely of external links, which are not allowed in navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Most of the links point to sections of the same articles. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label catalogues and artist roster unsuitable for navbox inclusion per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was   Request withdrawn I think I know how to handle this. Ping if there are any issues/questions. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 18:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely identical to {{Accountcreator topicon}}. Used only at User:BranStark/Navigation. Suggest replace and delete per WP:T3 — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 05:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the only difference is the |wikilink=. The link for {{Accountcreator topicon1}} to Wikipedia:Account creator might actually make more sense. I might update Accountcreator topicon to match. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 05:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 05:31, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per precedent here, this is better handled with a category. ~ RobTalk 01:24, 3 June 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus but any editor is welcome to rewrite one template to accomodate the other, write the second as a wrapper, and then renominate. The general consensus is that this shouldn't be listed at WP:TFD/H (which effectively pushes off this work to another volunteer), but there's no opposition to PanchoS or another editor completing this merge. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Category in year with Template:Year by category.
As stated by the creator, this is just a fork of Template:Year by category with the major difference that the categories' generic name is prepended as in Category:Animals described in 2005 rather than appended as in Category:2005 in the United States. This subtle variation should be rather easy to incorporate into Template:Year by category, though the |cat= parameter would need to be renamed to |suffix= or |post=, to accommodate a new |prefix= or |pre= parameter. PanchoS (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the function of these two templates is different enough to warrant them being separate. If a user wants to volunteer to do the rewrite though, then close as rewrite. But I'm suggesting a close as not merged. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 05:33, 3 June 2016 (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).