Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 21



Template:IP range

 * 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 redirect to IP range calculator after substituting current usage. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Suggest subst and delete. Little used template that never got off the ground; only allows for two values whereas a newer/more complex template (such as Template:IP range calculator) or set of links provide for more. Izno (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * IP range
 * Why not redirect to one of the newer better templates like Template:IP range calculator? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Subst and redirect subst existing uses, and then redirect per JV -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:52, 22 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).

Template:Diseases of RBCs and megakaryocytes

 * 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 split per discussion. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Split into Diseases of red blood cells and Diseases of megakaryocytes and delete - I see no reason why these blood components should be grouped together, to the exclusion of the white blood cells. And we should make RBC explicit - note that RBC is a disambiguation page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Diseases of RBCs and megakaryocytes
 * Split as per noms rationale. No reason to have them together. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Split, the template at first glance just doesn't integrate too well with each other. Heartwarming (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Split, totally agree this one is too bulky. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:14, 28 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).

Template:Cathead Conservatists by nationality

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC) The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. UU (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cathead Conservatists by nationality
 * Support "Not used" isn't true, as the nominator changed, renamed and transcluded the template in which has however been nominated for deletion. While I don't really understand the nominator's intentions, the template should be obviously deleted, depending on the CfD's outcome. --PanchoS (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not used in the mainspace and completely useless in the one transclusion in the category space. That category might even be deleted. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 17 March 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).