Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this overly specific wrapper on #ifeq, which is only used correctly on two templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:59, 19 May 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).
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) ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and seems unnecessary. When would a template needs the ternary undef/empty/content situation (for cases without |5=, literally the same syntax as #ifeq {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:48, 19 May 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).
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. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion in userspace, no apparent encyclopedic value Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that I've nominated a similar template by the same creator for deletion. Richard0612 12:34, 21 May 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).
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. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No page that is using this template would run into the expensive parser function limit if it used the regular #ifexist instead. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:08, 19 May 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).
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 after substituting in San Diego Padres retired numbers and transcluding on San Diego Padres (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on two articles, and could very easily be placed on the "retired numbers" page and transcluded onto the main article. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we talking about this[1] because there are five Padres with retired numbers....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: No, the nominated page is different from the navbox. This page is to reuse the table text in both San Diego Padres and San Diego Padres retired numbers, instead of syncing multiple copies.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:54, 19 May 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).
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 May 28. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:38, 28 May 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).
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 June 2. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 2 June 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).