April 4
Template:Insular Areas TV
- 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 April 13. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 13 April 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:Db-x1
- 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 and mark as historical. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No templates for the other no-longer-in-use criteria that weren't merged into broader criteria exist (((db-t1)) and ((db-u4)) are both redlinks), so I see no reason for this one to. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No harm in keeping this and there might be hundreds of pages in which this template appears in the history, so keeping the template will allow users to see what the page was tagged for. Regards SoWhy 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - tagging as historical is sufficient. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - T1 and U4 aren't great examples, as the former wasn't perfectly folded in and the latter was just outright revoked and thus was harmful to keep. This was a specific case that stretched over years, and it isn't actually all the easy to discover what was actually going on with Neelix. Keeping some level of historicity on this, perhaps with a helpful category on transclusion, would be quite reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per historically significance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as historical. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as having historical value (and, for that matter, the same treatment should be applied to ((db-t1)) and ((db-u4))). ToThAc (talk) 13:08, 11 April 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).
- 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 April 16. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 16 April 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).
- 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 April 12. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 12 April 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:Phonemetra
- 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) 13:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does appear to be needed given the lack of working links Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:01, 4 April 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:Administrative law in the People's Republic of China
- 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) 13:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unused with no links Störm (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a needless fork of content from the article into a template. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: I'm relisting mostly for more thoughts on whether the content of the template should be removed entirely or substed onto the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclined to a delete rather than a subst. The content is already in prose in the same section and I don't see great value in repeating that in a box on the right. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 4 April 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).