Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 24

[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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague concept (no clear criteria), no reasonable wikipedia subject (no article) - üser:Altenmann >t 15:50, 24 February 2016 (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) Primefac (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2016 (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 (non-admin closure). Arguments for deletion - that the template is redundant with Template:YouTube navigation, that the template does not meet "criteria" of WP:NAVBOX - are successfully refuted. This template is not completely overlapped by the more general YouTube Navbox; though it may be possible to make it so. The points at WP:NAVBOX are not exhaustive criteria, but attributes which some good Navboxes may possess.
The comment by Izno w.r.t merges and/or a more general Navbox is intriguing; and this close should not be seen to prejudice either of these courses of action. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, does not particularly suffice any navigational purpose —IB [ Poke ] 20:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. There are just two TV stations in Ojinaga, neither of which have full articles, and the other items on this navbox do not make use of this template. Raymie (tc) 08:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (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; no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two links. Not useful as a template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2016 (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. No opposition, and generally these have been merged as noted by Frietjes. ~ RobTalk 02:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Buddhist temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
There is no need for a separate template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:49, 24 February 2016 (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).