Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 23



Template:Brazil fc 2

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC) basically the same as Fb cl team for Brazil. should be substituted and deleted. Frietjes (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Brazil fc 2
 * Brazil fc
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:41, 25 July 2019 (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).

Template:Berwick Rangers F.C. squad

 * 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC) As with East Stirlingshire last year, a squad template is no longer necessary for Berwick as they have been relegated below national league level. The squad in the template is out of date, but the club article suggests they now only have one player with an article to link to, so no navigational benefit. Can be recreated if they are promoted again in future. Jellyman (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Berwick Rangers F.C. squad
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 08:41, 25 July 2019 (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).

Template:Five Nights At Ghost House

 * 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. kingboyk (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Contains two active articles, both of which are likely to be deleted. ... disco spinster   talk  17:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Five Nights At Ghost House
 * Delete per nom. Both articles are currently PROdded. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet Navbox criteria. BLAIXX 11:29, 30 July 2019 (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).

Template:TTC station
<div class="boilerplate tfd 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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:TTC station Template:TTC stations. No consensus what to do with TTC stations after the merger. If a history merge is desirable the requester should be aware of WP:Parallel histories and that the templates were not created as duplicates. EDIT: As Blaixx pointed out I accidentally closed it in the wrong direction. I've now fixed it. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC) --Trialpears (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Propose merging Template:TTC station with Template:TTC stations.
 * TTC station
 * TTC stations

Two templates with almost the exact same functionality. Previously "TTC station" worked using the first unnamed parameter and "TTC stations" (used with s-line templates) worked using a parameter named station, but as of yesterday "TTC stations" can work with either. Another minor difference is how Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station is handled; one template shortens it to and the other to Vaughan. This can be resolved outside of the TFD as it is trivial to the overall merger discussion. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 15:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait and everything will be replaced by the Adjacent stations module. There is an ongoing upgrade for this kind of template and it would just be a waste of your time. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that module, I've converted a few transit systems over pretty recently. By merging these two templates now, it will make the migration to Adjacent stations slightly easier by eliminating any uncertainty. The merger of these two templates would be quite trivial and shouldn't take long at all. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. Useddenim (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Commment: re Vaughan, we should probably have either "Vaughan" (for next/previous entries) and the full name, "Vaughan Metro Centre", as the alternate... unless we want 3 options? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: which name would we keep if we merged? TTC station or TTC stations? I assume "TTC stations" as that one is used by the rail succession templates? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * TTC station has zero transclusions now that ttcs has been redirected to TTC stations. It would actually make sense to delete TTC station and merge its history into ttcs since that's how the template was really used. But maybe that would make things too complicated... <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 18:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay... this was maybe a bit premature given the discussion isn't finished as yet.
 * So it seems like merging is likely okay... does anyone know why we had the two different templates to start with? —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, my edit was premature, I apologize. I didn't realize that every single transclusion of TTC station was through its shorthand. I think the template was created so that you can do this:  rather than this:   and then nobody really noticed until now. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 11:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha... so now that handles either method of being called, we are good with just the one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge – Now that we've worked through some of the questions I had, seems like a good move to make. I don't think we probably need to preserve the edit history of : it was essentially duplicating the functionality of and its edit history is not particularly notable from what I can see. That's my two cents: others may disagree. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The merge is basically completed already (oops) except for the documentation page. The way I see it, we have 3 options for what to do with TTC station. 1. Change it to a redirect to TTC stations, the least obtrusive action 2. Delete it and its history due to redundancy, as you are suggesting 3. Delete it but preserve its history in Ttcs, since that's how the template was actually used. I'm fine with any of those three but #3 seems like a good compromise. <b style="color: #329604">B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b>IXX 18:29, 25 July 2019 (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).