The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob Talk 13:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
None of the articles in this template exist, this simply serves no purpose until more rally articles are created. QueenCake ( talk) 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relist here. ~ Rob Talk 14:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. Only one film is released out of three. Musa Talk 18:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Obaid Raza/English to urdu wikipedia. The technical concerns have been resolved. If this page is entirely unneeded at this point, the author can request deletion as per WP:G7. ~ Rob Talk 13:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I previously requested this "template" be speedy deleted as article content in template space. The template's author (against the rules) removed the speedy deletion template. As the author also removed article content at the same time, I did not press the matter, but asked for an explanation on his or her talk page: User talk:Obaid Raza#Template:English to urdu wikipedia. In two weeks no explanation has been forthcoming, and the author has now begun using it again to store article content. NSH002 ( talk) 15:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep/don't merge. Consensus is that national banks are sufficiently different than companies so as to warrant their own infobox template. I was especially convinced by the argument that national banks issued currency, which requires unique parameters that probably shouldn't be a part of {{ Infobox company}}. ~ Rob Talk 13:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox U.S. national banks with
Template:Infobox company.
The new country-specific template is a redundant fork of the existing one, into which any necessary new parameters should be added. ({{
Infobox central bank}} may be an alternative target).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
on Template:Infobox Company? --
Ahecht (
TALK{{infobox}}
for simplify and standardise the transclusion is great, and personally I feel that's as far as the merger needs to go. There seem to be significant enough differences to justify letting the {{infobox company}}
and {{
infobox U.S. national banks}} go there separate ways. However - I would agree that ... U.S. national banks is perhaps a little too specific, and would support an infobox being created that handles the presentation for all banks (as opposed to companies) - i.e. {{
infobox bank}}.
fredgandt 18:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was redirect {{ Orfur}} and {{ Orfud}} to {{ Or-fu-re}}. Consensus was to merge. After looking at the templates themselves, no actual merge needs to be completed. Redirecting {{ Orfud}} to {{ Or-fu-re}} will change nothing for existing transclusions (the optional replacement parameter will just be absent), and {{ Or-fu-re}} and {{ Orfur}} are functionally identical except for a single pipe in {{ Or-fu-re}} that makes the replacement parameter optional. ~ Rob Talk 13:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Or-fu-re with
Template:Orfur and
Template:Orfud.
It seems that we have three shortcut templates for {{
di-orphaned fair use}}: {{
or-fu-re}}, {{
orfur}} and {{
orfud}}. I think that these should be merged into one template. {{
Orfur}} is meant for non-free files which have been replaced by other images and therefore has a mandatory parameter where you specify the name of the replacement image. {{
Orfud}} is used when no replacement exists or at least isn't known and therefore doesn't have the replacement parameter. {{
Or-fu-re}} has an optional replacement parameter and can therefore be used in all situations. I suggest that we merge all three templates into one template which has an optional parameter.
Stefan2 (
talk) 12:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replacement
param. If it accepted it optionally, it would do the job of all 3.
fredgandt 16:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Rob Talk 13:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
None of the articles in this template exist, this simply serves no purpose until more rally articles are created. QueenCake ( talk) 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relist here. ~ Rob Talk 14:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Not notable. Only one film is released out of three. Musa Talk 18:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Obaid Raza/English to urdu wikipedia. The technical concerns have been resolved. If this page is entirely unneeded at this point, the author can request deletion as per WP:G7. ~ Rob Talk 13:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I previously requested this "template" be speedy deleted as article content in template space. The template's author (against the rules) removed the speedy deletion template. As the author also removed article content at the same time, I did not press the matter, but asked for an explanation on his or her talk page: User talk:Obaid Raza#Template:English to urdu wikipedia. In two weeks no explanation has been forthcoming, and the author has now begun using it again to store article content. NSH002 ( talk) 15:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep/don't merge. Consensus is that national banks are sufficiently different than companies so as to warrant their own infobox template. I was especially convinced by the argument that national banks issued currency, which requires unique parameters that probably shouldn't be a part of {{ Infobox company}}. ~ Rob Talk 13:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox U.S. national banks with
Template:Infobox company.
The new country-specific template is a redundant fork of the existing one, into which any necessary new parameters should be added. ({{
Infobox central bank}} may be an alternative target).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
on Template:Infobox Company? --
Ahecht (
TALK{{infobox}}
for simplify and standardise the transclusion is great, and personally I feel that's as far as the merger needs to go. There seem to be significant enough differences to justify letting the {{infobox company}}
and {{
infobox U.S. national banks}} go there separate ways. However - I would agree that ... U.S. national banks is perhaps a little too specific, and would support an infobox being created that handles the presentation for all banks (as opposed to companies) - i.e. {{
infobox bank}}.
fredgandt 18:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was redirect {{ Orfur}} and {{ Orfud}} to {{ Or-fu-re}}. Consensus was to merge. After looking at the templates themselves, no actual merge needs to be completed. Redirecting {{ Orfud}} to {{ Or-fu-re}} will change nothing for existing transclusions (the optional replacement parameter will just be absent), and {{ Or-fu-re}} and {{ Orfur}} are functionally identical except for a single pipe in {{ Or-fu-re}} that makes the replacement parameter optional. ~ Rob Talk 13:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Or-fu-re with
Template:Orfur and
Template:Orfud.
It seems that we have three shortcut templates for {{
di-orphaned fair use}}: {{
or-fu-re}}, {{
orfur}} and {{
orfud}}. I think that these should be merged into one template. {{
Orfur}} is meant for non-free files which have been replaced by other images and therefore has a mandatory parameter where you specify the name of the replacement image. {{
Orfud}} is used when no replacement exists or at least isn't known and therefore doesn't have the replacement parameter. {{
Or-fu-re}} has an optional replacement parameter and can therefore be used in all situations. I suggest that we merge all three templates into one template which has an optional parameter.
Stefan2 (
talk) 12:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replacement
param. If it accepted it optionally, it would do the job of all 3.
fredgandt 16:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)