Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 13

[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. While unlikely, this is REFUNDable if more bluelinks turn up. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only six distinct working links, far too many red links and unlinked text. Per WP:EXISTING red links can be retained if they are likely to become articles, but in almost eight years this has not happened so seems unlikely to happen soon. Sons of Champlin already has a sidebar which does a much better job of summarising the group and providing navigation, I don’t see why this is also needed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:51, 13 January 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 relisted on 2017 February 20. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 20 February 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 Relisted on 2017 January 22 Primefac (talk) 00:06, 22 January 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 Relisted on 2017 January 22 Primefac (talk) 00:06, 22 January 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) 21:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used. Not sure if it ever was, but clearly surpassed by {{infobox settlement}}. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:55, 13 January 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).