- 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 split. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template is still incomplete (see Category:Emerging technologies), but it is currently too long (a sort of mess), and does not help in navigation.
Solution: Split the template into child navigable templates on related topics. Störm (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 6 December 2019 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Fourteen Holy Helpers with Template:Catholic saints.
Please see immediately here below. PPEMES (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Sure, is this group notable enough for its own section (probably after 'Virgins' and before 'Related')?, it's already linked in Related so maybe just leaving it as separate templates would be best depending on weight-of-topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, since the designation of a saint as one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers is nothing on par with the saint's designation as 'confessor' or 'virgin' or 'martyr.' It's a title, determined by history, by which a certain group of otherwise unrelated saints are venerated together. It should remain separate. — AJDS talk 05:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, agree with ADJS; not all saints are designated "holy helpers", a specific group of medieval personages. Manannan67 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2019 (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 2019 December 14. (non-admin closure) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:58, 14 December 2019 (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:Monastic glossary
- 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 merging with Outline of the Catholic Church or another more appropriate article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Monastic glossary with Outline of the Catholic Church.
Seems like a rather odd way of going about. Better merge with article realm entry Outline of the Catholic Church? PPEMES (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- PPEMES, the second template doesn't exist. are you proposing to merge with the article? Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. PPEMES (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- PPEMES, then you should change what you wrote above. Frietjes (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I tried to, although not sure it follows the rules to tweak it that way. PPEMES (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (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:AFLLadderLine
- 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) 19:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being replaced by Module:Sports table Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2019 (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:AFL Ladder/1897
- 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) 19:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Template:AFL Ladder is not a template and should either be deleted or moved to a /doc page of the Sports table module. --Gonnym (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2019 (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:Lnep and Template:Lnep/begin
- 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 changes are made to episode list, assuming there are no objections in the corresponding thread on the talk page Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why these template forks cannot exist as the actual templates that they call. -- /Alex/21 14:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note that there are also ((Lnep/@midnight)), ((Lnep/conan)) and ((Lnep/conan2)). --Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I planned to nominate those after these basic two templates, dependant on the outcome of this TFD. -- /Alex/21 14:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning support - unless someone has a strong argument for keep. --Gonnym (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd personally prefer keep these templates, but it's not something I care enough to fight for. In the likely event these templates are deleted, I would strongly insist that the special fields (|Guests= |MusicalGuests=), as well as (|LnAirDate=) be added to the be added to the main episode template. It would make editing the respective articles that these templates are made for substantially easier. I can foresee confusion from users having to rely on auxiliary fields and tweaking the title field to keep the pages maintained. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Grapesoda22, if there's consensus for that, it could certainly be arranged. -- /Alex/21 05:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wug·a·po·des 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- delete if
|Guests= and |MusicalGuests= are added to the main template or keep if they are not added to avoid confusion per Grapesoda22. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand what is meant here. Is the proposal to merge all these template into a single Lnep template where what currently is seperate templates are turned into parameters, a proposal to use ((Episode list)) directly or something else. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Trialpears, the latter. To use ((Episode list)) directly, but keep the parameters as they exist; i.e. keep
|Guests= and |MusicalGuests=. -- /Alex/21 05:58, 14 December 2019 (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).