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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R. D. Mathis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With this edit, this is now orphaned and possibly under WP:T3. Template:R. D. Mathis Company Evaporation Sources Catalog, by R. D. Mathis Company,pages 1 through 7 and page 12, 1992 is the redirect to it. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Keep. Ub orphan and make it useful again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.32 (talk) 00:53, 14 June 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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin phrases references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think it's good practice to template multiple sources like this. It makes it more difficult to change the format if needed and if we find a problem with one of these sources, it's a mess to separate. Even then, it forces these three sources to be in a block for some odd reason. This was discussed at in 2013 but the ultimate issue was only about the naming. This would seem to fall under WP:T3. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• substitute/delete Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete this should be a single reference per template, since it is required you use all three to be able to use such a template, and not just one or two. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (after subst) - This text is article data and belongs in the articles. The presence of this in template hurts the ability of new users to edit (as they have to figure out its a template, track it down, and edit it), and any change to the template could invalidate a particular citation on one the the pages using it (such as when a new edition of a publication is released). I notice that the references are kept intentionally vague becuase they are used so broadly, when we should be as detailed as possible; for example, citing the exact page of a reference in the particular edition it was taken from. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The template is only used in articles in the series beginning with List of Latin phrases (A); effectively a single, multi-page, super-article. It's difficult to envisage a scenario in which there would be a need to change the content of this template for one of those pages, but not the others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if I find a source for a Latin phrase that starts with a different letter? Wouldn't it be better to have all the sources as text that could be revised (so it's say in alphabetical order) versus keeping this block around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don like to have the same thing written twice. Better to template it so we can wiki the template without changing the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.32 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 June 2014‎
• Undecided — In the old discussion, I changed my !vote to keep on the condition that most of the stuff be removed, as it is now. Even though I'm tempted to abstain for this historical reason, I see why Magioladitis and this nom (and others) say this is unneeded. I don't really mind keeping references used on every page apart from those used on a specific page, but if someone provides an example of how the list from this template will be merged into the list of references on just one page, I may decide I like the idea. (How well will these normal links work with those which link to ref tags? Or, will they remain separate lists?) Thanks. —PC-XT+ 02:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC) edit conflict with myself, somehow... —PC-XT+ 03:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need an example of someone changing the citation format on a page? We'll keep it as a list as it is on each page. The text will remain, just not the template. If someone over time decides to use one of those sources and provide ref citations in the future, then one of them can be moved or whatever happens. The fact that it's locked the same prevents anyone from changing any one of those pages. I don't understand why people not just copy it directly on each page rather than keep it as a template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HP unlinked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned unused template for I think linking the Harry Potter books in a citation. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 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. They share many parameters. For the date field the standard date parameter could be used. Further arguments could be discussed on the template's talk page to aid merging. Magioladitis (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cfd result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Old CfD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cfd result with Template:Old CfD.
This is redundant to ((old CfD)), which supports the same parameters and more. I'm not too experienced when it comes to template merges, but this one seems like it would be pretty easy. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I regularly use one or the other of these, and it's never made sense to me why there are two separate ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can a parameter be added to indicate the name of the category at the time of the CfD? (this would be helpful when categories are renamed, to indicate what category was being discussed) Right now one of them has a section header name parameter, which is useful in single category discussions, but in group category discussions, if the name of the category has itself changed since the discussion, then finding the discussions points pertaining to the category in question becomes more difficult. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like at ((old move))? That would be good, but I'll leave it to someone more template-savvy to implement. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a merger or rename request, then from and to would be good. If its just a deletion request, then just the from parameter would be added. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge if it's possible. Cfd result has one field for date, whereas Old CfD requires pipes between the three parts of the date. Also, in Cfd result, the field for section name is optional and unnamed. (I regularly use Old CfD.) – Fayenatic London 20:57, 12 June 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 delete, no objections and appears to duplicate the navigation in Template:Thailand topics. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Symbols of Thailand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Improper use of a navbox. There is no reason for the reader to expect the Asian elephant and Golden Shower Tree articles to mention and/or link to each other, and the flag and emblem alone do not warrant a navbox. (Previous nomination here) Paul_012 (talk) 07:48, 5 June 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.