Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9 edit

Template:Grand Theft Auto IV 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 19 October 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:Grand Theft Auto V 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 19 October 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:2012 AFC Cup Group E 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates 2012 AFC Cup group stage#Group E Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 9 October 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:TR Election box begin 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, largely duplicates other election box templates Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 9 October 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:TLunarEclipse2 stat table 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, probably replaced by {{Infobox lunar eclipse}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 9 October 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:Suzhou weatherbox 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates Suzhou#Climate Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 9 October 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:A-league Ladder line 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused and orphaned template and I don't see any way which this template can be used. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:59, 9 October 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).

Marvel characters by alphabet 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 19 October 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:Los Angeles Sol 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. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, all links redirect to parent article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Someone was sorely confused about what templates like this are for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all links don't redirect to parent article. Template is useful and relevant. Hmlarson (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we can link the two articles with standard in-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 9 October 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:Philippines former state 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 19 October 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:CM Blas Kids original programming 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:29, 9 October 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:NJCOTW-invite 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused invite for dead project Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:28, 9 October 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:NJCOTWcur 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for dead project Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:28, 9 October 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:Poland Labelled Map 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 merge to Template:Poland Labelled Map Small. This may involve a judgement call; currently all of the cities are present but the "landforms" are not, and there isn't much room for them. If they can reasonably fit, then by all means merge. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map, drive-by tagged for "cleanup" since 2007 (How can a template be cleaned up?) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:28, 9 October 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:Sakaldwipiya 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. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only used for the eponymous article Sitush (talk) 13:22, 9 October 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:Details 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 19 October 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:Other Radio Stations in District of Columbia 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 redirect to Template:Washington Radio. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, or redirect to Template:Washington Radio. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is a proper template which to merge the content in this template. There are links to this template in the article namespace which are caused by the transclusion of {{Radio formats}}; {{Radio formats}} is set up to only link to the nominated template, a well as generating text referring to the nominated template, only when the template exists. However, unless there is an appropriate place to merge the content of this template, it should be kept due to how {{Radio formats}} functions. Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there may be other stations that fall into this category that aren't yet listed. Plus, deleting the "Other" formats template usually results in this link going to "Spanish" radio stations & those are 2 completely different things.Stereorock (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional: there are only 20 total stations in D.C., so 3 stations equate to 15% of the stations!Stereorock (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:37, 9 October 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:Other Radio Stations in Connecticut 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. Despite the two keep votes, and a significant number of bluelinks added, the template still remains unused. NPASR. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, navigates only one article Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless there is a proper template which to merge the content in this template. There are links to this template in the article namespace which are caused by the transclusion of {{Radio formats}}; {{Radio formats}} is set up to only link to the nominated template, a well as generating text referring to the nominated template, only when the template exists. However, unless there is an appropriate place to merge the content of this template, it should be kept due to how {{Radio formats}} functions. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there may be other stations that fall into this category that aren't yet listed. Plus, deleting the "Other" formats template usually results in this link going to "Spanish" radio stations & those are 2 completely different things.Stereorock (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: there are now 9 stations in template with more to come.Stereorock (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: there are now 15 stations in the template.Stereorock (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:37, 9 October 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:Portuguese infantas by marriage 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. No prejudice against recreation iff the scope and inclusion criteria are clearly defined, as this is the main reason for deletion. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See respective discussion page. One is born an infanta, it is not an acquired title. Also some included in template were infantas by their own right of other Iberian kingdoms. Maragm (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Anachronistic and factually inaccurate. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Maragm and Surtsicna: It seems as though "title infanta was given to the daughters and to the wife of an infante."[1] Our article Infante of Portugal though unsourced says the same as does Infante. So I'm confused by the rationale. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doug Weller Problem is that, first, the definition in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is not correct since it says that the title was borne from the 13th century when the title infante/a was used much earlier in the Iberian Peninsula. The Article you mention, Infante of Portugal is not referenced. There are no references in the template either to confirm that this was the case. Also, as I mention in the discussion page of the template, there were several infantas from Spanish kingdoms that were infantas by their own right as daughters of kings from Castile, León, Aragón, etc. If anyone can provide a source or a quote from any reliable source that says that they are considered Portuguese infantas my marriage, then I might reconsider, but as it stands, I believe it is incorrect to lump them together in this template. Maragm (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Practically opaque in what it represents - it took me more than 10 minutes to even figure out it was trying to represent 'women who married Portuguese infantes or men who would have been Portuguese infantes in an alternative reality where they didn't turf out their royalty', unnecessary and unhelpful listcruft presented in an awkward, poorly conceived, poorly executed, template format. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, leaning on keep for lack of reason to delete, and presumption of notability for queens or the likes of. That some articles included in a template also may belong in another template is not a reason for deletion, as a matter of fact that should be quite common, I presume. Say: some {{Norman Dukes}} are also at also {{English, Scottish and British monarchs}}. Also the first solution for an unclear criteria, is to clarify and clean up. Anachronistic is also not a reason, that the Roman Empire does no longer exist is not a reason to delete the article. - Nabla (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would gain from additional eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being clearly unsourced and anachronistic in its assumptions. This template assumes that one acquires the status of infanta upon marriage, especially those of much earlier times. As Surtsicna rightfully points out on the template's talk page: "Are we just applying 19th century dynastic customs to 13th, 14th and 15th century women?" I think how this template was made was just to put the spouses of infantes into a navbox without verifying whether the given people were indeed infantas. Rename it to Wives of Portuguese infantes if you must keep it... --Re5x (talk) 10:09, 14 October 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:Daytime-only radio stations in Washington, D.C. 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

provides no useful navigation Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:36, 9 October 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:Pop song 1 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 19 October 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:Refactoring 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 19 October 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:Revised paid contributions 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:34, 9 October 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:Royal Signals 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 19 October 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:Secret Annex 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. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:34, 9 October 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:Letters with ogonek 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 after merging into article Primefac (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless template that is only used on one page. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:31, 9 October 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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 2 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation; per the recent discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, the awarding of the Knight's Cross was deemed not to confer presumed notability on the recipients. The template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate.

The appropriate Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross already exists and is sufficient for navigation. Similar templates have been deleted in the past, such as TFD:KC recipients of the Fallschirmjäger (multi-TfD); TfD:KC recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet; TfD:KC recipients of the 4th SS Division (multi-TfD), and more. In addition, I'm nominating the following "KC recipient by X" templates; the nominating rationale applies equally to them as well:

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 9 October 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:FrenchDahomeyAdministrators 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, almost all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:00, 9 October 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:FootballAt1908SummerOlympics 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, fails WP:NENAN Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:35, 9 October 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:Figurative Language 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, seems to be OR Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:22, 9 October 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:F1-T1 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unclear use, user's only contrib Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:16, 9 October 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:Ellis' Railway Encyclopaedia3R 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:57, 9 October 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:Egypt Holidays 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, none of these is unique to Egypt. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:38, 9 October 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:East German Republic Day Parades 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 2017 October 19. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 19 October 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:PD-ROC 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and not a standard license template (e.g. no equivalent on Commons) FASTILY 01:13, 9 October 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:PD-Afghanistan 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and potentially inaccurate; I have not been able to verify the legitimacy of several of these claims, would suggest deleting this ASAP FASTILY 01:13, 9 October 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:DSM Copyright 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:41, 9 October 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:Current members of New Zealand Parliament 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, outdated, navigates nothing Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:39, 9 October 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:ConfirmationImageOTRS 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 2017 October 17. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 17 October 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:Chinlone at the 2017 Southeast Asian Games 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, all redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:05, 9 October 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_9&oldid=1073610683"