Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 1

June 1

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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary fork of the table in the article Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Zac ary (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2019 (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. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned here and here Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2019 (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 Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Roster maintenance with Template:Squad maintenance.
Same exact template with the difference being the hardcoded word "Roster" or "Squad" for display (not for any internal processing). These should have a more generic name anyways, as it's not used only for sports-related templates. The tool is named "Template linking and transclusion check" so something similar can be used to name the combined template. Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposing. --Leyo 21:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Um, merge to which name?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 1 June 2019 (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless now that all previously linked articles have been moved to draft. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:52, 1 June 2019 (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless now that all previously linked articles have been moved to draft. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:49, 1 June 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of Navbox that is probably better served as a list then a template. However, many of these albums don't even have articles and the ones that do don't mention its top ten placement nor does the Hit FM article mention anything about albums at all. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 1 June 2019 (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).