Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 26

[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. The only major argument for keeping is "breaking old versions." However, this is refuted by the point that there are a large number of deleted templates that would "break" an old revision ID. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural TFD, following the deprecation RFC and subsequent bot-removal (now-complete-less-one-protected-page) by User:KasparBot.

Given that the template was hidden for almost all users (all anonymous readers/editors and likely the majority of logged-in users), this should not have a significant affect on the pages in the page history; where instead of a space being present for the template, a redlink now would be. Izno (talk) 17:45, 26 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) 02:16, 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 merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Anthropology collapsible with Template:Anthropology.
I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 26 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) 02:18, 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).

Chemical elements named after ...

[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) 02:25, 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) 03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 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) 03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 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).

Excess Gospel of John–related templates

[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) 02:26, 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) 03:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:32, 26 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 move discussion to its new MFD page, as it is the proper location. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox; users who want to be added to Category:Wikipedians who use IRC can use {{User IRC}} anyway. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 04:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is I believe that these users do not use IRC and believe IRC is detrimental for Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 26 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).