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).
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)reply
Subst and redirect subst existing uses, and then redirect per JV --
70.51.46.39 (
talk) 06:52, 22 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).
Split as per noms rationale. No reason to have them together. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 07:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Split, the template at first glance just doesn't integrate too well with each other.
Heartwarming (
talk) 05:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Split, totally agree this one is too bulky.
JFW |
T@lk 10:14, 28 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 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)reply
Support "Not used" isn't true, as the nominator changed, renamed and transcluded the template in
Category:Conservatists in Hong Kong 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)reply
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)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).