Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 9
January 9
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. BethNaught (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Navbox with just two links, only one of which is the subject of the Navbox. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 16:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's rationale: we don't do navboxes with one link. If the bowl game is not already linked in the text of the main team article, it should be, and perhaps added to the "see also" section as well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2016 (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 subst: and delete. BethNaught (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Loan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template is not defined or described, 'loan' covers so much. Not required as it doesn't save any time/spacr; should be substituted and deleted. GiantSnowman 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's just hard-coded text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Subst and delete as redundant to adding "(loan)" afterwards. —PC-XT+ 00:05, 17 January 2016 (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 Jan 20. Primefac (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2016 (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).