Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 December 28

< December 27	December 29 >

December 28 edit

Template:NTFA Division 1 seasons 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) 14:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NTFA Division 1 seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox provides zero navigation. Articles in navbox would fall under WP:REDNOT as they wouldn't be notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. In addition, navbox was created seven years ago and articles haven't been created since. Flickerd (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero links. Where is there to navigate to?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:04, 31 December 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:NTFA Division 2 seasons 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) 14:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NTFA Division 2 seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox provides zero navigation. Articles in navbox would fall under WP:REDNOT as they wouldn't be notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. In addition, navbox was created seven years ago and articles haven't been created since. Flickerd (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero links. Where is there to navigate to?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:04, 31 December 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:Prehistory of Poland 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prehistory of Poland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and pre-history is already covered by Template:History of Poland Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the main article was merged, the template is still useful for a number of subarticles where I've added it. Ping User:Orczar who is interested in this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:40, 28 December 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:North Alabama Landmarks 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) 02:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Alabama Landmarks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No evidence of necessity. I can't immediately find a policy or guideline for this, but these "landmark" templates seem to be reserved for large cities with lots of notable landmarks, not areas that include multiple cities/communities, which, in this case, includes a large geographic region of a U.S. state. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, although the term "landmark" is subjective, there are other templates of this type. however, the others are focused on large cities per the nom. if someone wants to create a more targeted version of this template, go ahead, but this one isn't very helpful. Frietjes (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2018 (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).