Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25 edit

Template:Neptunium series 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. To ensure proper attribution of content, the contribution history of the template will be copied to Talk:Decay chain. RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neptunium series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Found tagged with {{Db-t3}} as unused and merged into Decay chain#Neptunium series. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (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.

Template:Thorium series 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. To ensure proper attribution of content, the contribution history of the template will be copied to Talk:Decay chain. RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thorium series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Found tagged with {{Db-t3}} as unused and merged into Decay chain#Thorium series. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (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.

Template:Extra chronology 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was History merge. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extra chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and unused. (Note: Template is protected and cannot be tagged.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has now been tagged. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Extra chronology 2}}, or move {{Extra chronology 2}} to {{Extra chronology}} and keep {{Extra chronology 2}} as a redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tending towards your second option; except include a history merge since the more recent template started out as a derivative work of the original template. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History merge. I'm not sure why, but the originator of {{Extra chronology 2}} chose to fork to a new template rather than modify the existing template. Despite this, his template started as a copy/paste of {{Extra chronology}}, so deleting it would be a violation of the GFDL. Unfortunate that this happened, because it could have been avoided by simply using {{editprotected}} on the templates talk page... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move - Move {{Extra chronology 2}} to {{Extra chronology}} and keep {{Extra chronology 2}} as a redirect; current {{Extra chronology}} is unused and that is the better, more sensible name. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2010 (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.