Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 18

< May 17	May 19 >

May 18

Template:Infobox royalty/embed

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 WP:G7. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox royalty/embed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and not needed since embedding can be achieved without a subtemplate Frietjes (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have requested a G7. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:03, 18 May 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).

Template:History of the papacy

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 merge to Template:Popes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of the papacy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Popes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:History of the papacy with Template:Popes.
The very same content overlapping. Especially now since the type size has been altered, I see even less reason to have part of the content in the larger template dublicated in a smaller one. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - no need to have same info in two places. — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:38, 18 May 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).

Template:South America Labelled Map

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) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South America Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unusedGonejackal (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could feasibly be used in a few articles (e.g. South America), although the background map should be replaced with a higher-resolution or SVG version. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

feasible ≠ usefulGonejackal (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed. if you want a labelled map, use File:South America-en.svg. the links are not needed since they are already in the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the links are useful, they could still be included.Gonejackal (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

included in what? I said they are already in the article, and the links are in the template which you have nominated for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 22 May 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).

Template:Dinuralk

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) 23:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dinuralk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template name doesn't identify what the purpose of the template actually is (there is no article or reference to what DinuraLk actually is or means). There is nothing in any of the individual articles listed on the template that relates or identifies a link back to DinuraLk. Whilst the articles listed on the template are mainly individuals there is also a link to Music of Sri Lanka however there is nothing to identify what these articles have in common. Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; meaningless. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:36, 18 May 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).