Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6 edit

Template:RMpmc 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 relisted on 2016 June 20. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RMpmc (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).

Template:Religion primary 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 merge. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religion primary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Faith primary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Religion primary with Template:Faith primary.
Per the discussion at Template talk:Religion primary that lead to the creation of {{Faith primary}} in 2013, but was never followed up on. The idea behind this nomination and that discussion is that religion is a specific case of "a faith or other belief system" (text of that template). The proposal is to redirect Religion primary to Faith primary. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 14:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants of a recent discussion involving these templates to get their thoughts. @Damiens.rf and LeadSongDog: ~ Rob^Talk 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with redirecting {{Religion primary}} to {{Faith primary}} if done in such a way that the resultant displayed notice text remain essentially unchanged.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: using {{Faith primary}} will help distinguish {{Religious text primary}} sources without critical commentaries from opinions without critical commentaries. There is conflation in many articles of what religious beliefs in religious texts are and uncritical opinions of what those religious beliefs are. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:23, 7 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).

Harold Ball Memorial Trophy 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 delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harold Ball Memorial Trophy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Harold Ball Memorial Trophy winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Harold Ball Memorial Trophy Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox fails criterion #4 of WP:NAVBOX: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Also consistency with the deletion of Harry Collier Trophy and discussions on the topic. The three templates are duplicities of each other under different names. --SuperJew (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, horrible colour scheme for anyone who with colour blindness. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As colour schemes can be easily changed, I don't think it's a basis for deletion. Also that's the colour scheme for all the Melbourne Football Club related templates. --SuperJew (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've deleted the two duplicates as T3. This navbox was actually deleted around when we went through the other clubs at the links in the nomination, but because it was G7 rather than a TFD we'll have to wait the week instead of G4ing it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:23, 7 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).