Template talk:Archived link

I mentioned when you created this template, but it's entirely redundant with Template:Source, right? And I like the look and wikiformatting of that one better (particularly how it has declared field names so you don't need to memorize the order the fields go in). Is there any reason we should keep this template or can I propose deletion? -- Quaelegit (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be redundant of the Source templates, they just have slightly different formatting, but the fields are identical. The difference is a stylistic one, where the Source template adds a superscript this template doesn't, which I don't think is enough of a difference to warrant a separate template. However since it's mostly stylistic, could we simply merge this template into the Source template page? That way, editors can decide which style they prefer. Patchlamb (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, deletion is fine. However, I would like {{Archived link}} to be a redirect to the {{Source}} template, as the name of the Source template isn't very clear or indictive. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)