Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 29

< November 28	November 30 >

November 29

Template:No Secrets

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) 04:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No Secrets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless, majority of links are redirects Jac16888 ^Talk 22:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient relevant articles to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2011 (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:PD-textlogo

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 Keep. Nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-textlogo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PD-text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:PD-textlogo with Template:PD-text.

~~These two templates are practically identical. Thus I am proposing that they be merged. —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support merging. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose merging and also This needs to be cleared by the WMF counsel - We absolutely need to keep these two templates separate because the legal rationales behind them are different, and have different ramifications in different jurisdictions. Note, for example, what the PD-text template on Commons says. Secondly, the vast majority of items tagged with either of these templates needs to be moved to Commons anyways, and Commons keeps them separate (for the above reason), so combining them here would make moving them over to Commons much more tedious. Finally, apart from being the legal reasons, there are reasons that the file workers track them separately, and this would make our work more difficult while offering no real benefit. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sven Manguard. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per Sven Manguard's explanation. —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 23:40, 30 November 2011 (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:Tlxs

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging Template:Tlxs with Template:Tlsx.
After Jab7842 (talk · contribs)'s edit, the two templates now do the same thing. So, {{tlxs}} should redirect to {{tlsx}} . After redirection, it should be fully protected like {{tlsx}} is. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{tlxs}} should be deleted, and {{tlsx}} should be moved to {{tlxs}}, since the template belongs in the {{tlx}} family. -- Jab7842 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the reasoning for the naming provided on the talk page template talk:tlsx, since it belongs to the template:tls family. It is also the documented version of the template, appearing in the {{tls}} template see also section. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a "Template link expanded" template. -- Jab7842 (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs to both families, since it is for Substituted templates and also provided eXpanded syntax. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like if they are merged, both tlxs and tlsx names should be retained. PS, I concur that the two templates have converging purposes. Since the functionality of {{tlxs}} seems to be a subset of {{tlsx}}, the former should be merged into the latter, with any additional (hidden) functionality incorporated. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{tlxc}} belongs to both {{tlx}} and {{tlc}}, but it is titled tlxc. The same applies to this template, {{tlxw}}, and {{tlxb}}. -- Jab7842 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this TFD is not visible in transclusions. Jab7842 is making it a noinclude. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tlxs into Tlsx. Tlsx is the older template. Keep redirect. Change Template:Tl-nav to link to Tlsx. On the other hand Wikimedia has Tlxs (here). Whatever you do, keep the other as a redirect. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2011 (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:Hurricane same name

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 per G7.

Template:Hurricane same name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on Hurricane Gladys (1968), which is not ambiguously titled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to hatnote. HurricaneFan 25 14:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for creating the template, but at the time I was not a fully developed editor. I am so sorry. Please don't be mad or something to me. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody;s mad at you; this is just a procedural thing to make sure, before it's deleted, that that won't break something. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and replace any uses with a suitably-constructed call to {{Other hurricanes}} which has a similar purpose but is more flexible. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — What is worse than a template that is only used on one page. I definitely agree this crap be deleted. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2011 (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.