Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 6

< February 5	February 7 >

February 6

Template:JewishNews

Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#February_17 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Melanesia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Bgwhite (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's perfectly reasonable to navigate within Melanesia. I'll roll this out presently, as I've updated the code to use standard NAVBOX format instead of the pre-navbox code it currently used. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is {{Countries and territories of Oceania}}, but this is more specific to the region, so may not be entirely redundant. I'll wait to see how it develops... —PC-XT+ 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as it navigates articles effectively, now. —PC-XT+ 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template is more specific to the Melanesian region of Oceania. Melanesia is becoming more of an entity with the increasing importance of the Melanesian Spearhead Group. Also, there are plenty of other templates for regions like this one, such as Template:Polynesia and Template:New England. - tucoxn\^talk 08:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, appears to be in now in use. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Queen's Park F.C. squad

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 January 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia: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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queen's Park F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not aid navigation, too few links JMHamo (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I'm always a bit wary of deleting football squad templates due to lack of bluelinks, since the squad is constantly changing and therefore the number of bluelinks could fluctuate wildly, Queen's Park not only don't play in a professional league but are also reolsutely amateur and are therefore unlikely to ever have a significant number of bluelinked players -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly doubtful there will ever be sufficient bluelinks to justify existence of this navigation template. Giant Snowman 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike ChrsiTheDude, I have no hesitation whatsoever deleting a navbox when only 3 of 24 listed persons are active blue links to existing Wikipedia articles. Navboxes existing primarily to provide ease of navigation among closely related topics; this one fails that fundamental purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NENAN - not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Single entry

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Single entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

deprecated since 2007. time to take it out behind the barn and ... Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 13:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. - tucoxn\^talk 00:46, 9 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.