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 mergetoTemplate:Carmarthen to Aberystwyth RDT. There seems to be a consensus that these two templates should be merged, but I will leave the choice of which direction that merge goes up to those who are more knowledgeable than myself (i.e. take it to the talk pages!). I said to go to {{Carmarthen to Aberystwyth RDT}} mainly due to it being the "current" line, but if it's determined the older template is better suited then go for it. Either way, the other should then be redirected. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(If the only difference is the branch in the top right, then a switch can be added to {{Carmarthen to Aberystwyth RDT}} to show the branch.) Jc86035 (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there doesn't seem to be any clear distinction between the two templates and the stations along the route seem to use either template randomly. Perhaps User:Redrose64 could explain what's going on with these. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created one of them, but not as an original - I cutpasted from an article. The two RDTs seem to relate to different historical periods (M&M old, C-A recent), but the distinction has been muddied by various people who may not have been aware of the existence of both. They could probably be merged, but it needs to be done by somebody with knowledge of the area and with the necessary editing skills. We can't merge by a straight copypaste, since the two use different incompatible methods for laying out the diagram; Template:Carmarthen to Aberystwyth RDT has been altered to the horrid {{Routemap}} syntax, and I can't find a discussion proposing that conversion - let alone consensus. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to do the editing, if someone gives me clear direction as to what should be on which diagram. Useddenim (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2017 (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 no consensus. the template has been substantially changed since the discussion was started Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Navigates too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving this to Template:Ub Iwerks and adding the films in Category:Films directed by Ub Iwerks, since director boxes are the standard for films. that would add 24 films and the characters and other content could be listed in a "related" subgroup. Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly moved and expanded it. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2017 (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 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 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).
unused and blanked Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2017 (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).
unused and empty Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2017 (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).
Delete per nom. --Wolbo (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2017 (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).
Delete: no need. Sawol (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2017 (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 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 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 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 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 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).
All content on this template has been deleted or redirected Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not only that, two of the singles listed in the box aren't even theirs. sixtynine• speak up • 12:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a good example of a template that is not really doing anything to help navigation. Dunarc (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only links two articles. --woodensuperman 15:26, 27 October 2017 (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. per author approval Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With only one album with an article, this band doesn't need a navbox. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, created this years ago when I had a bad habit of over-creating template. Honestly thought this got deleted a few years back, pretty sure I even supported its deletion, but obviously I'm misremembering. Sock(tock talk) 06:09, 25 October 2017 (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).
Merged. Useddenim (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
