Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 11 - Wikipedia

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FALink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unless I am missing something, this one is unused and not working. I can withdraw if I am wrong. Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dinagat Islands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Dinagat Islands is no longer a province of the Philippines as the Philippine Supreme Court declared the creation of the said province was unconstitutional. All of the wiki links included in the template redirects to Surigao del Norte province where it is located. Therefore, this template cannot be used anymore. JL 09 ^_q?c 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is no inherent reason that articles (and by extension, navboxes for those articles) can't be about political entities that no longer exist. See Category:Former subdivisions of countries for numerous examples. So this template could be used, with a little bit of rewording so it doesn't sound like it is about a current province. That said, it isn't used currently, so I'm not opposing deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.