Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives

Logs
What's the purpose of having an archive that logs both deleted and not deleted when we already have two consistently updated logs for both seperately? The 'main' archive seems a bit redundant to me.

Also, is it as complete as the seperate logs? -Frazzydee|&#9997; 15:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hasn't been used since December 2004. Marking it as deprecated. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 14:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archiving daily subpages
In an attempt to keep this from turning into the monstrosity that is Archived delete debates, I've made a mockup of a full year's logs using the JanuaryCalendar2006Source etc. templates at User:Cryptic/sandbox4. If we don't mind having all the redlinks, the excessively ugly wiki source can be avoided by transcluding directly, i.e. &#123;{JanuaryCalendar2006Source|1=Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 &lt;nowiki&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt;|1a=|2=|3=|4=|5=|float=left|color=#ccccff|color2=#ccccff|EndNote=}} and so on, which produces the calendar to the left. (This also won't need updating whenever a page moves to the archives.) Thoughts? &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 13:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives → Templates for discussion/Log – no reason for this to be a subpage as the latter redirects to the former anyway. make consistent with Redirects for discussion/Log 82.132.219.251 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - In principle this saves one level of directory and would be harmless. On the other hand, there are more than 100 incoming links to the existing name, and some bot and template code might depend on the old name. In my opinion this move should not be done unless someone familiar with the mechanics of TfD will say that it's OK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Over 100? No, there are currently 14 but 11 are links because of this move discussion. And I'm not quite sure how that's relevant as we would not be deleting the redirect left after the page move so this wouldn't break anything. The only bot used at TfD is User:AnomieBOT and all it does is create and maintain the daily subpages and maintains the discussion list on the main TfD page. It doesn't go anywhere near this page. 82.132.226.244 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose a makework proposal. This should have been discussed at WT:TFD before ever opening an RM request, since it will impact bots and templates used to maintain TFD. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.