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. No opposes to do so after the first relisting. Lack of participation seems to mean no objections, in this case. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jennifer Nettles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Jennifer Nettles with Template:Sugarland.
Nettles has too few solo works at the moment to warrant her own template. The only three solo works with their own pages are "That Girl", its title track, and "Who Says You Can't Go Home". The rest of the links are all duplicates of the Sugarland template, thus creating massive overlap. The Sugarland template should be sufficient at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge per TenPoundHammer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:31, 24 April 2014 (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.

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) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging Template:Rellink with Template:Hatnote.
These two templates are essentially the same with the exception of another syntax qualifier that can be added to ((Hatnote)) from ((Rellink)) without having to manually update any values in the 800,000 combined transclusions of these templates. Also, for further notes about this, please see a related discussion at Template talk:Hatnote#Conversion to Lua. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – These two templates have virtually the same functionality. If one of the templates is merged into the other, the hatnotes will still be functional. Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I would get rid of ((Rellink)) and corresponding "rellink" class in MediaWiki:Common.css. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would drop the "dablink" class for being worse named, see below in my !vote. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

...And I would replace both classes with a "hatnote" class ... see below. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge templates and Commons.css classes. Similarity of function is one of the best reasons for merger. What else can I say? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to "hatnote" per nom -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Merging seems logical to me, and would be just as easy to do in my proposed Lua version as it would in the current wikitext version. I've also left a note at MediaWiki talk:Common.css letting editors there know about this discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. What is the extent of use for of the extraclasses parameter? If negligable, it can be removed alltogether. — Edokter (talk) — 10:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Things like Template:See also use it to add the classes "boilerplate seealso". I don't see either of those defined in MediaWiki:Common.css though, so maybe they aren't important? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Such classes may be used in skins or in custom CSS files. At least I see value in custom CSS file with contents like this:

  .seealso .new {background-color: #FAA;}
  

  Anyway, classes don't really add to performance, and traffic delta is probably neglictible, provided that much more inefficient things are allowed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)`[reply]

  If I understand this well, that class="seealso" then should be added by the template/module systematically, not by the article editor. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently this is the case with the example Mr. Stradivarius draws (((See also)). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm learning. Now we can continue checking the usefulness of those two extraclasses. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The extraclass= is also present in ((detail)). -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can this be done quickly, or the template note be taken off every single page that this appears on? While it's obviously important to get templates right, it's unsightly and distracting for readers to have those notices put up everywhere - a bit like roadworks that block off a street for weeks without much being done. There are probably better ways to alert editors. Cheers, Wikidea 10:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note is already hidden. If you still see it, purge the article. — Edokter (talk) — 10:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, much appreciated! Wikidea 13:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Keep name ((hatnote)), and keep using class name class=rellink. Because class=dablink still uses old disambiguation background, which is too limited by now. ((Hatnote)) allows any text, not just dab-related. This applies to more hatnote templates, for example, ((main)) has nothing to do with WP:DAB. -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @DePiep: I believe that a more accurate option world be to replace both the "dablink" and "rellink" classes with a "hatnote" class, considering that not all hatnotes have to do with disambiguation (or whatever "rellink" is short for), but all hatnotes are ... hatnotes. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW it might be comming from "link relation". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: yes, class="hatnote" is even better. Don't know if class renaming is doable, and whether a TfD can cover that. A "phase one out" choice is within reach. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: I would I believe that the class renaming option is completely doable, given that it looks like the only two templates that directly use the "dablink" or "rellink" classes in their syntax are ((Hatnote)) and ((Rellink)). (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) But, just in case, it may be safer to just phase out one, and leave the other, as you stated, since yeah, we shouldn't unknowingly be breaking Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added bolds to my !vote. Intention unchanged. -DePiep (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2014 (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.

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 history merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Beatles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this navbox wrapper is no longer used in article space after a massive cleanup effort by NSH002. per the discussion there, this is really only needed in one article, The Beatles, and more targeted navboxes should and are used in the-Beatles-related articles. I, personally, would like to see the pre-August 2011 history of this template merged into Template:The Beatles main, and either (a) redirect it to ((The Beatles main)) or (b) move ((The Beatles main)) to this title. I have nominated it here for further discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are three options here (see the discussion on the talk page):
  1. simply delete this template (advantage: prevents people adding it to any article only remotely connected with the Beatles)
  2. redirect to ((The Beatles main)) - the easiest option (a history merge would not be necessary)
  3. merge the pre-August 2011 edit history of this template with that of ((The Beatles main)), which would then become ((The Beatles))

For the reasons stated on the talk page, I prefer #3 - overall, the neatest result in the end.

--NSH002 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO №3 makes most sense. Another benefit: ((The Beatles)) is more intuitive then ((The Beatles main)). Some documentation for the template family could probably be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge edit histories per DDC. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2014 (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.

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multiple stable software releases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be intended as a module for ((Infobox web browser)), transcluded in two articles (including once inside a table), and called somewhat awkwardly by the main template. From the code, it does nothing more than mapping label1 to parameter 1, data1 to parameter 2, etc. If a software's version numbers are genuinely so unusual to require such a byzantine solution, it might be better to omit them from the infobox, and explain them in the main body of the article. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (!vote by author): I made this template to replace templates like this with a single unified display, as ((LSR)) subtemplates tend to break. The simplistic approach, noted by nominator, is currently employed simply because the template is in its infancy – it was created on April 18, and still requires edit to protected template in order to be usable. (The latter is the reason it is not really used anywhere.) Both ((LSR)) and this template mainly exist to maintain version information across multiple articles, and this purpose will be defeated with proposed solution to explain versioning in plain text in the body of the article. I would also note, that the problem this template is supposed to address isn't uncommon, so it has some potential. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes this template is still at infancy and that's why I didn't replicate the change from ((Infobox web browser)) to ((Infobox software)). But let's not commit infanticide. The first thing we need to do is to add a section header to ((Infobox web browser)) and fix the overflow problem in doc page. The rest, we will figure out. Meanwhile, detaching version numbering from the infobox does not have consensus; in fact, there is a backlash against it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2014 (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.

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 with Template:Infobox rugby tournament. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox European Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox international football competition Template:Infobox rugby tournament. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and obvious keep one is rugby union, one is association football. The sports and parameters are therefore different and hence one is not redundant as a result of the existence of the other. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, but we do have a rugby union template like this: Template:Infobox rugby tournament.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Template:Infobox rugby tournament. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (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.