Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20

Template:Myrath

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) 01:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two albums with articles and both already link to and from one another, so this navbox does not aid or improve navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:04, 20 March 2020 (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:York Rite

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:Freemasonry footer. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:York Rite with Template:Freemasonry footer
.
In consistency with how the other rites are merged already for a more complete overview. PPEMES (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support So long as it includes all the information of the current template I'm fine with it. PeRshGo (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally. PPEMES (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2020 (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:Tltts

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 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:18, 28 March 2020 (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:Howie Hawkins series

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) 01:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most links are either redirects to Howie Hawkins or are loosely related to a third-party candidate with the exception of his presidential campaign. Template has only been edited twice overall. Wow (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the same structure as Template talk:Jill Stein series, and the precedent brought up for that template's deletion showed that it's okay for any political leader to have one. Howie is already a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Green New Deal also isn't loosely related, he was the first ever candidate to campaign for it. Catiline52 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A year-old "no consensus" discussion does not really count as precedent. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, this is not a precedent when the sidebars for Joe Walsh and Jeb Bush were deleted for similar reasons. --Wow (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (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:Offline user

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:No Internet. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Template:Offline user with Template:No Internet
.

Outright deletion of the offline template was narrowly rejected in a recent discussion, with some "keep" !voters calling for this merge; merging these almost identical templates would be the next-best step. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. PPEMES (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, perferably using this aforementioned version by Soumya-8974. Both templates include a statement mainly about not having internet, and the "slightly different connotations" can all be merged in one template, switched by parameters. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we have to choose a "host" template to "survive", I would say the merge should be held at Template:No Internet due to the template having more transclusions (NI -> 12, OU -> 3; for what it's worth, OU is only used in doc pages). –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 07:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Insignificant differences between templates - Flori4nKT A L K 16:00, 26 March 2020 (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:Viking runestones

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 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (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:Viking ring fortresses

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 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (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:Baltic emporia

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 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (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:Old Norse sidebar

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 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (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:Vikings

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 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (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:2020 coronavirus quarantines

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 2020 March 28. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:21, 28 March 2020 (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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_20&oldid=947778674"