Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 30

January 30

edit
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 2019 February 7. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (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).
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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with zero links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 30 January 2019 (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).
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 2019 February 7. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (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).
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 2019 February 7. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (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).
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 2019 February 7. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (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).
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:Hover title. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Hover title, Template:H:swl and Template:Span title.
They are all redundant to each other and provide the same functionality. {{Span title}} is basic and has not additional parameters. {{H:swl}} and {{Hover title}} have the same parameters (|dotted= and |highlighted= are the same). We should keep {{Hover title}} due to the higher usage count. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 05:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Given the fact that the latter two are so little used, seems sensible to merge them. Nigej (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the previous discussion and the lack of on-template notification until (relatively) recently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2019 (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).