Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 22

September 22

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

({{PRC admin/ref sgc}} intentionally excluded, though it maybe should be deleted for a different reason) Totally overcomplicated system for storing data, which is in net used on only one article. Pppery 23:21, 22 September 2017 (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 delete. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is nothing but redlinks Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created with the idea that someone would create individual event pages. It's been three years since the event so I guess it should be deleted. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2017 (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. WP:NPASR. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really do much other than add <sup> to {{NYCS SSI}}. It's only directly used in {{NYCS time 2}} AFAIK. Jc86035 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2017 (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 delete. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. entirely red links except for 3 which all link to the same page. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:27, 22 September 2017 (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 merge. (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 03:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox royal house with Template:Infobox noble house.
A few weeks ago it was decided to merge {{Infobox noble house}} with {{infobox family}}. Unfortunately, it seems only one person who is actually familiar with the usage of {{Infobox noble house}} commented. I'd like to counterpropose the obvious merge of these two instead - they are nearly identical and could much, much more easily be merged. The templates for Houses of Nobility and Royalty are nearly identical and their subjects overlap, and many times I have seen articles on noble houses using the {{infobox royal house}} instead. The majority of their fields are of no use on {{infobox family}} and vice versa, and this merge would just cause confusion (who is the "current head" of the Kennedy family? What is the "current region" of the House of Romanov?). While the subjects might seem to be the same, the templates do not actually correspond with each other. Merging noble house/family templates is going to create a lot of work for someone when the same purpose could much more easily be accomplished by merging it with Royal House. МандичкаYO 😜 22:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse, Template:Infobox noble house has already been merged with Template:Infobox family, so is this merge proposal procedure really correctly done? Again, as I and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) has pointed out, parametres isn't a problem. This could conveniently even be moduled if needed, similarly to Template:Infobox office holder. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They quite clearly have not been merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 1 October 2017 (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 delete. Already deleted? Primefac (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

old, non-notable roster Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2017 (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).