Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 8
February 8
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 relist to Feb 27. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This navigation box is basically empty. Should not have to be an entire template. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Feb 27. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Does this template make sense? Is this an actual WikiProject? Wikipedia:GLAM/MedinaPedia consists of a redirect to meta so should we have a template and structure for articles for a project when it isn't actually a WikiProject here? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment at any rate, it should not categorize into Category:MedinaPedia as it is doing now, since that implies a content category instead of project category -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Feb 27. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Practically unused template. Nothing that can't be explained with a standard wikitable (like seen here). Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unused. One usage doesn't need a template and we should (re)create it only when enough articles want to have a standardized presentation to justify increased editing complexity. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I originally closed this today but just reopened it at @Prisencolin's request. I'm recommending his participation here. czar 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I've been planning on using it on more articles, just haven't gotten to it yet. Also "Nothing that can't be explained with a standard wikitable", is that some kind of policy, I'm not sure tbh.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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 to user space. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Template:NewyorkadamGA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
should be moved to userspace? Frietjes (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Newyorkadam, which probably should have been done the first time. Primefac (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy per nom user:Newyorkadam/Template:NewyorkadamGA -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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) 14:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Template:CUEP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This appears to be a note to a student in another language about a particular assignment. The creator seems to not exist? I don't know what to do with it. It's orphaned. —PC-XT+ 05:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 05:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Clearly serves no purpose whatsoever. Especially not as a template.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Under which criterion? Test page? —PC-XT+ 16:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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).