Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9 edit

Template:User FA 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 no consensus. NPASR, but if so it should be done at MFD. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FA with Template:User Featured articles.
Consolidate content contribution userboxes. These seem to have the same purpose. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we just get speedy decisions on all of these userbox merges so everyone's user pages can stop looking awful? Morgan695 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Morgan695:, the general practice seems to be that discussion (and in general individually) is preferred for most templates. Speedy deletion has the possibility of breaking things and also upsetting people which would be bad :(. The disruption should only last for at most another few weeks, likely much less as these discussions are closed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2020 (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).

Template:User FAw 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 to Template:User Featured articles. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FAw with Template:User Featured articles.
Consolidate user content contribution navboxes. These seem to have the same purpose. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support User Featured articles has all of FAw inside it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techie3 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 November 2020 (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).

Template:User FPO 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 to Template:User Featured portals. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FPO with Template:User Featured portals.
Consolidate content creation userboxes. These have the same purpose and should be merged (or FPO replace/deleted). Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nominator. — 🦊 23:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - These infoboxes have the same purpose.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2020 (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).

Template:User FPortal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:User Featured Portal. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FPortal with Template:User Featured Portal.
Consolidate content creation userboxes. These have the same purpose and should be merged (or FPortal replace/deleted). Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User FL 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 no consensus. NPASR, but if so it should be done at MFD. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FL with Template:User Featured List.
Consolidate user content creation infoboxes. These infoboxes seem to have the same purpose. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User Featured Lists2 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 to Template:User Featured lists. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User Featured Lists2 with Template:User Featured lists.
Consolidate user content creation infoboxes. These infoboxes seem to have the same purpose. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong merge They're essentially the same thing. ~ HAL333 19:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. Aviator006 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per nomination. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as they are duplicates of each other. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2020 (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).

Template:User FP Nominator 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 no consensus. No participation. WP:NPASR, but if renominated should be done at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FP Nominator with Template:User FP.
I propose merge to User FP and replace delete this template. Consolidate userboxes related to multiple FPs. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User FP Nominator 2 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 no consensus. No participation. WP:NPASR, but if renominated should be done at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FP Nominator 2 with Template:User FP.
I propose merge to User FP and replace delete this template. Consolidate userboxes related to multiple FPs. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User Featured Picture Nominator 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 no consensus. NPASR, but if so it should be done at MFD. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User Featured Picture Nominator with Template:User Featured Picture.
Used once, this template has the same purpose and formatting as the more widely used User Featured Picture. I propose it is replaced and deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are different. Template:User Featured Picture is for users who created or uploaded the photo. Template:User Featured Picture Nominator is for individuals who simply nominate the photo. Seddon talk 23:31, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User FT 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 no consensus. No participation. WP:NPASR, but renomination should be done at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User FT with Template:User Featured topics.
Consolidate user content contribution userboxes. These appear to be pretty much the same. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User Wikinews FA 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2012, unused, and we are not Wikinews. Delete. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused and no use for it as we are not Wikinews. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom - 2pou (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2020 (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).

Template:User A-Class Article 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 to Template:User A-Class Article. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User A Article and Template:User A-class with Template:User A-Class Article.
Consolidate A-class article userboxes. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:Gerardo Díaz y su Gerarquía 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Richard3120 with the reason "Unpopulated navbox, and the artist has no albums with articles in order to populate the template." FASTILY 22:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails navigation point 4 of WP:NAV-WITHIN. It can be re-created if more articles are created later. - 2pou (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2020 (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).

Template:La Dinastía de Tuzantla, Michoacán 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Only has one entry, and the artist has no other albums with their own articles in order to be able to add to this template. Should be deleted and only recreated if and when articles for the other albums are created. Richard3120 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails navigation point 4 of WP:NAV-WITHIN. It can be re-created if more articles are created later. - 2pou (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2020 (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).

Template:Top25 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 to Template:Top 25 report as the clear first step, but without prejudice against Trialpears' suggestion for further discussion about whether the combined banner should be removed entirely to reduce banner blindness. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Top25 with Template:Top 25 report.
These templates are nearly functionally equivalent. The former is typically used for the most viewed page, while the latter is used for being somewhere on the top 25 (in any nth place). But the former allows a param to specify the place, and the latter allows comments for the same. They're used on many articles separately, bloating the page (eg Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput). I don't see a reason why this can't be merged into one template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, preferably preserving [[Template:Top 25 report]].--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The templates serve virtually the exact same purpose. No reason for there not to be a merge. Benmite (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) merge into {{Top 25 report}}. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 12:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. I'm not sure what readers are supposed to do with the information that the article was among the most viewed on a particular week. It doesn't affect how we edit the page and doesn't help us improve the article which is the entire purpose of the talk page. Removing these would result in less banner blindness and people actually reading the more important banners. It is also worth nothing that by definition these have to be very popular articles most of which have a lot of banners. A merge would definitely be preferable to have two templates for the same purpose though. --Trialpears (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but delete would be just destruction on a whim. Whether we individually find something useful or not, we should accept that many other people do find value in it. Ref (chew)(do) 09:32, 14 November 2020 (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).

Template:Nation 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on (now deleted) article created by new editor, I think that this malformed template was intended to be a fill-in-the-box method for creating "nations" on Wikipedia. (Not sure what that means.) I don't see any use for it. Schazjmd (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support agree with the nominator. I saw the nonsensical article by said new editor and it's clear to see how the existence of such a template could inspire imitation. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2020 (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).

Template:User GA log edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:User Good Articles2. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User GA log with Template:User GAarticleswritten.
Consolidate GA userboxes. I propose replace / merge and delete. This template is used once, poorly formatted, obscurely titled, and looks ugly. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User good articles 2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:User Good Articles2. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User good articles 2 with Template:User GAarticleswritten.
As above Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT) Is that the right target? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my mistake. Have corrected.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User Good Articles 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 to Template:User Good Articles2. Noting that the other discussion found a consensus to move the nom-suggested target, this one remains the only option. In effect, this is basically just saying consolidate Template:User Good Articles and Template:User Good Articles2. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User Good Articles with Template:User GAarticleswritten.
As above Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User GAw edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:User Good Articles2. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User GAw with Template:User GAarticleswritten.
As above Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User Good Articles3 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 to Template:User Good Articles2. Noting the other discussion found a decision to merge the originally suggested target by nom, so only this target remains an available option. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User Good Articles3 with Template:User GAarticleswritten.
As above Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2020 (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).

Template:User Good Articles2 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 to Template:User Good Articles2. By the way, userboxes (of any namespace) generally go to MfD, but I'll let you off :-) (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User Good Articles2 with Template:User GAarticleswritten.
Merge all the good articles userboxes into a single userbox for ease of maintenance, consistency. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment saw this after the long "the template below (User Good Articles2) is being considered for merging..." wreaked havoc on my userpage layout, and just want to say: I use "User Good Articles2" rather than "GAarticleswritten" because the latter does not have a counter, and has a dark, low-contrast appearance that looks awful to me. I don't particularly care how things are set up on a technical side, but replacing this with GAarticlewritten would be an absolute downgrade in my opinion.--AlexandraIDV 00:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but I agree with Alexandra. I've tested the colors used in both templates on a contrast accessibility checker and User GAarticleswritten colors fails while User Good Articles2 passes. So as WP:ACCESSABILITY has priority over style, the merge should be the other way. This is also the colors used by Template:User Good Article. --Gonnym (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm here for the same reason as Alexandra. I think this template is superior to the first one, and if merging the two means a removal of "User Good Articles2", then my vote is against. ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but please keep the layout of Good Articles2, I like the counter and the colour. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but I agree that the format of Good Articles2 is preferable. —-Coemgenus (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Template:User Good Articles2, per arguments above. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Template:User Good Articles2, which is clearly preferable. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm wondering whether it might be better to come out of this series of merge requests with two or three templates in all, because they don't all represent the same level or type of participation. Some are "written or significantly contributed to" (Template:User GAw and Template:User good articles 2, which appear to do the same thing, some just mention "written" (Template:User GAarticleswritten), some say "contributed" (which could be almost anything: Template:User Good Articles2 does this, though it allows "contributed" to be changed to some other word or phrase, and Template:User Good Article Significant says "significantly contributed to the promotion"), some say "helped promote" (again almost anything: Template:User Good Articles uses this, while Template:User Good Article Significant "significantly contributed to the promotion", which seems to indicate having done more). We might want to consider having two, both including the option to give a number: one with "written or significantly contributed to" for significant contributors, and one with "contributed to or helped promote" for those who helped but not in a major way. If this makes sense, then I'd suggest merging Template:User GAw, Template:User good articles 2, Template:User GAarticleswritten, and Template:User Good Article Significant into a one template with wording like the first two in this list, and the rest (including Template:User Good Articles) into Template:User Good Articles2, with its wording and perhaps the option to adjust "contributed" to something else. Is there any way to combine all of these requests into one so we can consider them as a group? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlueMoonset: that can usually be successfully hashed out post-TfD, pre-implementation. On the TfDs where a target isn't clear yet, you can express your preference as a comment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (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).

Template:User Good Article Significant 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 to Template:User Good Article. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User Good Article Significant with Template:User Good Article.
A large number of duplicate userboxes exist with pretty much the same function and appearance. It would be easier to have a single userbox for this usage case. A parameter that decides what is used for the word "written", and the ability to insert the number of good articles, means that lots of templates can be rolled into a single template with a simple name and unified formatting.

This will also stop the gradual proliferation of more infoboxes as new boxes won't have to be created for every variation on the word "written" ("contributed", "added significantly to" etc). Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:CONSOLIDATION. But Tom (LT), would you mind combining these nominations into a single section? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb, WP:CONSOLIDATION is about infoboxes, but there is WP:WPUBX#Merge for userboxes. +1 for combining the discussion sections. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrybak, thanks for the link. Perhaps we need to consolidate our consolidation essays, eh? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No need for dozens of templates, where one can achieve the same result. I'm not even sure there needs to be a parameter for every variation of the word. "Contributed" can cover that all. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_9&oldid=990984459"