Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 17

[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 2016 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2016 (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).
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 2016 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2016 (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).
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 2016 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2016 (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).
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 2016 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused wrapper template which is redundant to more targeted transclusion of the subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

defunct, historical list maintained in parent article. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2016 (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).
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) Primefac (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

blanked, and would be duplication of Aphonopelma#Species and Euathlus#Species if it were up-to-date. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2016 (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).
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 as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the author meant to speedy delete it, but used the wrong template. Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

provides insufficient bi-directional navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (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).
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) Primefac (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates Annandaliella#Species, Brachypelma#Species, Ceratogyrus#Species, Grammostola#Species, Haplopelma#Species, Ornithoctonus#Species, Pamphobeteus#Species, Phormictopus#Species, Poecilotheria#Species, Psalmopoeus#Species, Pterinochilus#Species, Selenocosmia#Species, Selenotypus#Species, and Theraphosa#Species. Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates other gridiron football infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (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).
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) Primefac (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (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).
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 as G7 by Magioladitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 20:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and points at the wrong category. should either be fixed/renamed/used, or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's unused; I had an aspiration that items in this category might be expanded one day, but that will probably never happen. I only created this because the maintenance category guidelines suggested it. But I don't understand "wrong category". Category:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates has 412 members currently. David Brooks (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David Brooks, if it is tracking the correct category, why does it say 0 entries? (hint click on the "undated articles" link). Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see what happened. When I set up Category:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates a year ago, I must have been utterly confused by Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category#Progress box template. So this template is, yes, a mistake. Delete it. David Brooks (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates other navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (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).
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) Primefac (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lists of populated places are generally maintained as categories, hence navigation between list articles should not be needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed, that one non-redlink article of the template is a redirect. Pratyush (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not clear why we need it. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not in English, and duplicates the English version of the same template. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates Lift-to-drag ratio#Examples. Frietjes (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

provides no core navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

provides very little navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not clear where it would be used. Frietjes (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and partially duplicates other navboxes like {{Law Schools of the Southeast}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates navigation found in Template:Lega Nord. Frietjes (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates navigation found in Template:Lil' Kim. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and provides no core linking. just linking to people associated with the seminary. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and not clear where it would be used. Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2016 (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).
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 withdrawn by nominator. Per Primefac's comment below. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned and unused template. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2016 (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).
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 procedural keep. The main template is already nominated; if deleted the /doc will also be deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation page for unused template. Safiel (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. No opposition. REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned and unused template. Safiel (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

single use template, which I have now merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2016 (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).
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) Primefac (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only one working link. Does not serve a navigational box's primary purpose, which is... well, to enable navigation. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:02, 17 October 2016 (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).
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 keep. It appears that the information found in the infoboxes might be better suited for the navboxes. A discussion to that effect should take place, with NPASR for this family of templates should the decision be to keep the infoboxes as they are and delete the navboxes. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list

I am nominating this one (along with all the other nation at the Commonwealth Games templates, as these are redundant. There is an infobox at the top of all pages which use this template. with the exact same links. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that per the above discussion there are now 85 templates being nominated. TFDlinks disabled to avoid breaking transclusion count of the page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant to the navigation provided in the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am uneasy about using Infoboxes to provide navigation in this fashion - that's not what infoboxes are for. I see no problem in providing a "previous" and "next" link in the infobox but otherwise infoboxes should be used for a summary of information, and navboxes for navigation. I wouldn't want to see this case providing a precedent. Is there a precedent elsewhere for using infoboxes for navigation? --NSH002 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NSH002, as near as I can tell these infoboxes are actually really ugly infobox/sidebar hybrids, with the "years participated" bit hardcoded into the IB. As to your question, I don't think there is such precedent for using IBs for navigation, but sidebars often do. The entire IB system surrounding the Commonwealth Games needs to be looked at, but that's a completely different discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Primefac. I don't think we can decide to delete these until the question of the infoboxes is resolved. Hence I am "!voting" procedural keep. --NSH002 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2016 (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).
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 2016 October 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2016 (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).
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 {{Bsexi}} with {{Importance example}}. Keep {{Better source example}}. ~ Rob13Talk 23:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: merge Bsexi with Importance-example Propose merging Template:Bsexi with Template:Better source example.
Inline templates derived from {{Refexample}}. The two used to display [importance?] and [better source needed], respectively, which was no different from {{importance-inline}} and {{better source needed}}. So I edited both to [importance of example?]. I think the templates should now be merged and then renamed to {{Refexample inline}}. Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2016 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... the title "McCombs School of Business"... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:17, 17 October 2016 (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).
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 replacing, as discussed. ~ Rob13Talk 23:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template was mainly used by {{Taiwan line}} (before it was merged into {{rint}}, but there are still pages using it. Fully redundant to {{TRTS color}}, {{Taoyuan color}}, and {{KMRT color}}, and should be replaced with these templates for consistency and avoid redundancy. Note that since the output of this template is a color parameter, I had to put noinclude tags or risk breaking almost 80 pages. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2016 (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).