Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 2

February 2

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 relist to Feb 11Primefac (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine with Template:Urine tests.
These two templates should really be merged, in view of overlapping content areas and similar subject matter. It benefits editors by having concepts like what is tested for in urinalysis displayed in the same navbox template as what the results are. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:27, 2 February 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. The project seems extremely defunct, but the point about restarting is valid. Unless the entire thing is scrapped, I don't see these going anywhere. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These unused templates are part of the infrastructure of the long-defunct Featured Sounds / Sound Of The Day initiatives (e.g. see Portal:Featured sounds and Wikipedia:Sound of the day/requests which has had no significant edits since 2007). They include references to things such as "the featured sounds director" and "designed to go live on the main page of the English Wikipedia sometime in 2011". DexDor (talk) 06:29, 2 February 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too few wikilinks, does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are now nine links, despite what User:GiantSnowman falsely indicated! SevcoFraudsters (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have been proved wrong and redlinks have turned blue. GiantSnowman 06:52, 7 February 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).