Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 4

April 4

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. I think this is a poor attempt at a navbox template but its only use would be at Baghel and, being unsourced and unlinked, it adds nothing even there. Sitush (talk) 18:02, 4 April 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 April 11. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:31, 11 April 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template, "2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template". The pictures are too small to be seen and the queens are already linked through Template:Queens and Consorts of Thailand. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:30, 4 April 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 speedy delete. Test page. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 15:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused external link template, hardcoded with a specific target. Opencooper (talk) 11:14, 4 April 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 April 14. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 14 April 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 April 11. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:31, 11 April 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly redlinks. WP:NENAN. KMF (talk) 00:05, 4 April 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. Consensus seems to be concerned with the scope and accuracy of the template. List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain exists, and I'm happy to sandbox this upon request if the contents need to be checked against existing categories/list articles. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a strange intersection for a navbox, which also seems to contain other articles not related to its title. Not really useful as it stands. Would be better for category navigation. No article on the topic, fails WP:NAVBOX. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 4 April 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).