Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27

[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 relisted on 2016 July 8Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 8 July 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 relist to July 7Primefac (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate single line template for just five ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:29, 27 June 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 relist to July 7Primefac (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:14, 27 June 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 relist to July 7Primefac (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:13, 27 June 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) 23:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox does not contain any links that the main article does not already contain, and thus does not serve any useful purpose. Even if all the redlinks were turned blue, they could easily be incorporated into the infobox. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:15, 27 June 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 relisted on 2016 July 8Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 8 July 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).