Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6[edit]

Template:Citation/fixdate[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) ∯WBG^converse 12:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation/fixdate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This subtemplate is no longer used, per this search result and this search result. I found it being used inappropriately in three articles, and I replaced those transclusions with {{Date}}, which is much more useful and flexible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support unused. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2018 (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:History of Scandinavia[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:Scandinavia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Scandinavia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Scandinavia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:History of Scandinavia with Template:Scandinavia.
Redundancy. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Provided the various ages in the History of Scandinavia as a whole are parsed out from the histories of the individual modern states. – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a no-brainer that frankly could just be WP:BOLDly done. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2018 (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:Laura White[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laura White (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --wooden superman 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not worth keeping for the sake of 2 links - Those 2 links are in the article thus making this navbox all but pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough links... — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 19:36, 7 December 2018 (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:Livvi Franc[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) ∯WBG^converse 12:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Livvi Franc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --wooden superman 16:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Davey2010^Talk 13:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough links... — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 19:38, 7 December 2018 (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).

Doctor Who external link templates[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 relisted on 2018 December 14. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 12:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DWRG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Doctor_Who_RG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TardisLibrary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:OG_review (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:MOS-TM[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 keep. There seems an overall consensus to keep the current state where the three templates are wrappers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MOS-TM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MOS-TW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MOS-NB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MOS-TRANS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:MOS-TM, Template:MOS-TW, Template:MOS-NB and Template:MOS-TRANS.
No reason to have four different templates when content on trans men, trans women and non-binary people are treated the same on Wikipedia. feminist (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentatively support;~~ the very slight difference in the introductory wording ("...material about one or more trans men", etc) could be handled via a parameter if it is deemed absolutely necessary, but it seems like having a single template say "...one or more trans people" (or even "...one or more trans or non-binary people") would be fine. MOS-TRANS is probably the best name, out of the bunch, to use for the combined template. -sche (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my tentative support since apparently the "parameter" solution has already been implemented, as pointed out below. No objection to expanding it ot handle MOS-NB the same way. -sche (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close since there is nothing to merge. The first three are already instances of {{MOS-TRANS}}, and have been since 16 February 2018, when an apparently undiscussed merge was performed by TheDragonFire (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously if this puts anyone out, feel free to revert, it just made sense at the time. TheDragonFire (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralish Historically there have been reasons to support small variations in wording in order to provide more explicit guidance, that can be implemented with few templates (which we have now, with three of them calling the fourth) or one single parameterized template, and I don't see strong policy reasons to prefer one vs. the other. --joe decker ^talk 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaking as the original creator of Template:MOS-NB I agree with Redrose64; the merge has already been done, leave the templates as-is. Funcrunch (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2018 (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).