Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 19
| < January 18 | January 20 > |
|---|
January 19
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was merge and redirect.
- Template:Old prod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Old prod full (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Old prod with Template:Old prod full.
Old prod is just a special case of "old prod full" where the deletion happened before the PROD was contested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- No objection from me, as an editor who has defended the need for "old prod full". The short one "old prod" is used on less than 200 pages. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Note that the language of Template:Old prod states that the article has been restored after a deletion … I don't know if this makes any difference. — 74.96.38.153 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- The code for "old prod" can be merged into "old prod full". A bot can go through and change all "old prod" to "old prod full" with the appropriate parameters. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Merge for consistency and to make it easier for those attempting to use these templates. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect Technical 13 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. DrKiernan (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary template when only two songs have articles and it offers no improvement in navigation over Template:Sara Bareilles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The template is superfluous, since the only two songs with their own pages are easily accessible from one another through the singles chronology in the infobox, in addition to the album article and Sara's navbox. Songsteel (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per the above; template does not seem warranted. Gong show 20:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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.