Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 18

[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 WP:G7. clpo13(talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not needed since embedding can be achieved without a subtemplate Frietjes (talk) 11:31, 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).
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]

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]

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

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

feasible ≠ usefulGonejackal (talk) 22:01, 19 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).
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]

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]

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).