Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 27



Template:Audio and video interfaces and connectors

 * 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
 * Propose merging Template:Audio and video interfaces and connectors with Template:AVconn.

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in July 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Audio and video interfaces and connectors. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * If it's about merging, why is it in the form of a deletion discussion? Aiken &#9835; 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now "Templates for discussion", which includes both deletion and mergers. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.

Template:G-Unit family

 * 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 as no one appears willing to merge the templates
 * Propose merging Template:G-Unit family with Template:G-Unit.

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in August 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:G-Unit family. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge. There is significant overlap between the two tables, and no apparent reason they need to be separate. --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. --  ISLANDERS  27  09:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge one is about G unit records and the other is about G unit the group. They are two different things--Yankees10 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.

Template:MLA template
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously deleted per Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 2. Transparent attempt to override the consenus there that the template was too big in the number of crosslinks it contains by making it collapsible. 2 lines of K 303  12:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as way to large to be useful for navigation. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Prettytable-R
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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

Similar to Prettytablewidth and other "prettytable" templates that have been deleted as unused and redundant to CSS classes. I believe these are the last of them. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: thanks, I've been meaning to do this for a long time. Only uses are in User and Talk namespaces. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.