Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 10

< June 9	June 11 >

June 10 edit

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Coord (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Lunar coords and quad cat with Template:Coord.
The Lunar template was split from Coord, which it transcludes, in order to apply categories, This functionality can be included in {{Coord}}, or one of its sub-templates modules. (I TfDd it, but that was closed with no consensus, and a suggestion that TfM should be used instead) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this proposal failed back in April 2014 and May 2014, this is the third time its been nominated in three months! -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close repetitive renominations. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge instead of keeping the loading at {{coords}}, I think that non-terrestrial coordinates should be separated out into a separate template set. One advantage is that someone cannot accidentally choose a non-Earth link for coords, and a non-terrestrial template can require a world be set, so will not accidentally link to an Earthly coordinate. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—per nomination. If a little bit of editing can make it so that coord handles what this does, it will be simpler to support the one template than to try to update both in the future. As for the comments that this is repetitive, if a past TfD result says that there should be a TfM proposal, and then there is that TfM, the nominator should not be faulted for refactoring per the discussion. In any case, the proposal has merit and should be discussed, not closed procedurally. Imzadi 1979 → 06:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the April and May closures also suggested that it first be discussed at template talk:coord; which did not occur after each closure, instead it showed up here at TfD again. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose, until such time this is discussed at Template talk:Coord or some other venue more suitable for discussion. Sorry Andy, but I don't think that repeatedly re-nominating the same template with the same rationale is a particularly helpful or constructive thing to do. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 15 June 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:Joanna Hogg 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joanna Hogg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3 films hardly need their own template LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They are known films with their own articles, thus qualifying them for a template. It also helps readers navigate to the films more smoothly. So I don't see a reason why the template should be deleted. Arbero (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent, seems she is still active so it would be kind of pointless to delete it just to recreate it. but, recreating it would also be trivial. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 12 June 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.