Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 23[edit]

Template:Thompson Family[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has just three links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No article exists for the family either. --woodensuperman 08:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 as a substantial duplication of {{Blackpool Pleasure Beach Ltd}}. --woodensuperman 10:04, 24 October 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).

Template:Chaplaincies of the Catholic Church in England and Wales[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 2018 October 31. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:52, 31 October 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).

Template:Catholic dioceses in England and Wales[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 2018 October 31. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:52, 31 October 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).

Template:Cathedrals of the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom and Ireland[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 2018 October 31. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:52, 31 October 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).

Template:S-line/Sydney Trains left/BankstownCircle[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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these templates are either unused or used only in partially broken talkpage posts or sandboxes. Their existence just clutters the category they are in and adds confusion for people trying to work out the template system for these lines. Gareth (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. The following which are even older are in the same position:-
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:Orbit Culture[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no links transcluded to a single article. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 23 October 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).

Template:Trivial mention[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. (Used to be mis-used on just one article, TMZ, which I fixed here.) Unsuitable for use in article space, as one of the other "problematic reference" inline cleanup tags would be more appropriate. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:03, 23 October 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).

Template:Navbox United States[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not needed Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 23 October 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).

Template:Thomas Ring[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only three entries. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:27, 23 October 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).

Template:Antonine dynasty[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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thanks for the contributions! I rarely propose deletions, but this template should go. Firstly, the "Antonine dynasty" isn't really a thing. It's an arbitrary subset of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, which has its own template, which is better. The page to which this template links was redirected to the Nerva-Antonine article in 2009. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 06:01, 23 October 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).