Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 17
November 17
[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 relist to Nov 26. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Fdw editintro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template is not used and has no likelihood of being used. A simple text explanation type entry that would belong on a help page or in a guideline, not in template format. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment how does one determine if it isn't used? I assume this is an WP:Editnotice, or a WP:Preload, which is called by MediaWiki software settings, and is not transcluded. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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 to Nov 26. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Geologic Ages Inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Period start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Geologic Ages Inline with Template:Period start.
Redundant to a better designed template. The name makes the purpose unclear, whereas {{Period start}} tells you exactly what you're going to get. It is also paired with {{Period end}}, so you can provide the time span of a geological time unit without needing to look up the next unit. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree I think merging is fine. Alhtough I think that "period start" does not return the age-measurement-error yet. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)- Since this TFD notice was added, it broke a few others, so this template is in use by Template:Geological_range. So much care is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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 relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 25. BethNaught (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Tuguegarao City TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete. Insufficient links. Sixth of March 06:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Template:European Games stadia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:European Games Host Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navboxes with only one entry, far below the five article guideline to warrant one. If this event ever actually happens again then these could be recreated in the future, but as it stands not everything needs a navbox. QueenCake (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- delete, better as a category or a section in the parent article in any case. we don't need a navbox for everything. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - We don't keep one and two-link navboxes; they serve no navigational purposes for our readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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).