Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mostly redlinks, not a good topic for a navbox Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates template:KR Puram Assembly Labelled Map Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, out-of-date, and duplicates navigation found in Template:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Template:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom should be used instead. --mwilso24 (Talk/Contrib) 18:51, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, better to use a category Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 30 August 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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template refers to a single incident, with it being unlikely that more incidents will occur to make the template necessary. The incident is already linked in the 1981 list. GR (Contact me) (See my edits) 17:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add tfd tags to all pages you nominate for deletion. (I did it for you in this case) Pppery 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ireland may have some others... ----woodensuperman 12:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Woodensuperman, I've seen those and now there are 13 entries, though a few are redlinks. ww2censor (talk) 13:05, 31 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two related links - the album and the tour supporting the album, which both already link to and from one another. EP article was redirected and the band is not know for any of the singles and this template would never be placed on the articles for those songs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:07, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not perform any useful navigational function. --woodensuperman 15:07, 30 August 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. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be used a bare handful of times but does not obviously seem to do anything another template in the related series does not.

"It hasn't caught on" might be another way to phrase it. Izno (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:30, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navigation template The Banner talk 10:01, 30 August 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless db- template, because not only is it not an actual CSD criterion, it's hardly even a welcome message. Twinkle has "problematic user" welcomes as well as auto-notification when CSD tags are placed, so this half-manual half-welcoming template seems unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 03:25, 30 August 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).