Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 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).
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:WWE Championships. General (if weak) consensus is that the merged template is suitable. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Former WWE Championships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:WWE Championships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Former WWE Championships with Template:WWE Championships.
Each template only has 5-6 lines, and they basically cover the same topic, just current vs former. A person looking to navigate between current championships is no more likely to only want to see current than to see current and former.
A subgroup to cover current and another to cover former should do the trick. The combined template would only be 11 lines, which seems more than reasonable for a template to me. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Former WWE Championships must remain as separate templates from the current WWE Championships. Otherwise it would look like as though the former titles were never retired. Hansen SebastianTalk 12:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Hansen Sebastian: Did you read what I wrote? They would have two different sections. It would be very clear what titles are retired and which ones are not. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have created User:Galatz/Template:WWE Championships which shows that there is a clear distinction between current and former. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Hansen Sebastian: Did you read what I wrote? They would have two different sections. It would be very clear what titles are retired and which ones are not. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Hansen Sebastian, what's your opinion on the proposed merged template? I believe that it makes it clear which are current and which are former, but I'm not sure it's actually an improvement over the status quo and will therefore remain neutral. Another option which may address both concerns would be having one template that adds two navboxes which would make sure both navboxes are present while making it absolutely clear they're separate. --Trialpears (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mild support I think the combined table looks pretty good. It does make clear which are current and which are retired. That said, I'm not so sure how much navigation value there is for lining championships that only existed decades apart. oknazevad (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support The template looks fine now and I don't have any concerns about confusing past and current chamionships. That said, it's by no mean a necessary change. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2019 (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).
- 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 keep for now but delete after six months if still online. Per the suggestions in the nomination the content will be blanked in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Wikilivres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Sad to say that Wikilivres, a site on which I was an admin, has been offline since the start of August. It's obviously not coming back. Having all these links to a dead external website isn't going to do anybody any good, especially since there are other sites that can be linked to for texts that are still copyrighted in the US but are public domain elsewhere. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep for now - comment out the contents, so nothing displays, but keep the templates in place in articles for a while longer, in case the site does return. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep for now agree with Andy. There's a chance that it will return and waiting another six months with the links hidden wouldn't hurt anyone. That being said let's not have this discussion again then if nothing has changed, but speedy it per G6. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (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).
- 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 relisted on 2019 November 13. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2019 (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).