Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 28

[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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Template: VG timeline that allows in-article editing of the timeline and has a visual element to it. I actually preferred this one. Soetermans. T / C 07:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Fallout one, this wasn't used on The Elder Scrolls article to begin with. --Soetermans. T / C 07:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Template: VG timeline that allows in-article editing of the timeline and has a visual element to it. I actually preferred this one. Soetermans. T / C 07:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (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 relist at Nov 13Primefac (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seeing as the article was just merged with Borders Railway, it is no longer needed. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 22:04, 28 October 2015 (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 merge as proposed. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Gastrointestinal surgery with Template:Digestive system procedures.
Duplicate scope, no need for two separate templates. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2015 (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 relist at Nov 13Primefac (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broad and unclear scope. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 20#Template:Keelboats worldwide. Smartskaft (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with zero links to tournaments. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 28 October 2015 (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 relist at Nov 13Primefac (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, and apparently, not intended to be substituted. Confusing use, and unlikely to be used, and redundant to the functionality of several templates in Category:Wikipedia help templates. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (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 deletePrimefac (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant template. Claims to be with the main article as Balmiki sect which in itself is unsourced. Also, this negolism of "-ism" is not popular, if at all not a hoax. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:39, 28 October 2015 (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 Speedy deleted by creator request. - Nabla (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this per recommendation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Template:Select. It's not clear how this template is intended to help improve the encyclopedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I realized this too. Yep, remove it. I will use one in my own userspace. Sorry. Frank (User Page) (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2015 (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).