Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 22

November 22 edit

Template:Campaignbox Normandy break out 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation found in Template:Campaignbox Normandy Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Mughal–Maratha Wars 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally duplicates navigation found in Template:MarathaEmpire Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Mongol invasions of Vietnam 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 Relisted on 2016 November 30 ~ Rob13Talk 04:46, 30 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Julien's Persian War 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation found in Template:Campaignbox Roman–Persian Wars Frietjes (talk) 23:57, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Illyrian Invasions under Agron and Teuta 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 Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation found in other templates like Template:Campaignbox First Illyrian War Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Battles of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849 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 Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally duplicates Template:Hungarian Revolution of 1848 Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Atlantic blockade in the French Revolutionary Wars 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 Relisted on 2016 November 30 ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 30 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Ninja 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, all red links Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Texas Revolution Naval Campaign 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, pages are using Template:Campaignbox Naval operations of the Texas Revolution (1835-1837) instead Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Tonto Basin Campaign 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, pages are using Template:Campaignbox Apache Wars instead Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 22 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Wars of Etruscan Rome 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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it in to the Veii article, as there is no real problem with the template itself, Ill see if there is more places to add it in. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: I have made it useful, it now links to all three wars, and is on all three pages. Can I request that you withdraw the nom? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:05, 28 November 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).

Template:Campaignbox Western Chalukya-Chola wars 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 22 November 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).

Template:Campeonato Nacional da 1ª Divisão de Hóquei em Patins (Roller Hockey) - 2012/13 season 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, old season, the links are generic (not season-specific) Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 22 November 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).

Template:Campus Ambassador navbox 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and mostly redlinks Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 22 November 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).

Template:Canada House standings/internal header 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused subtemplate Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Frietjes: Is there some reason why you listed the doc subpage (which would normally be a G8 once the main template is deleted), but then didn't add a tfd tag to it? Pppery 19:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Pppery, because if I don't list it, I will have to tag it later for deletion. this way the person deleting the pages will see it. Frietjes (talk) 20:47, 23 November 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).

Template:Canadian Defence Staff 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and partially (but not entirely) duplicates navigation provided by other templates like Template:Chief of the Defence Staff (Canada) and Template:Canadian Armed Forces Frietjes (talk) 23:18, 22 November 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).

Template:Canadian Pacific Railway style 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 22 November 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).

Template:Canadian Prairies 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 keep, given that the nominator agreed that adding to articles was a viable option. ~ Rob13Talk 07:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, should be added to articles or deleted Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 22 November 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).

Template:Canadian Window and Door Manufacturer begin 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 22 November 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).

Template:Canadian conservative party ideology 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 22 November 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).

Template:Rfcquote 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 Withdrawn (although some documentation is needed) Pppery 21:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Undocumented template that is in no categories and linked only from one user's sandbox.
  2. Utterly redundant to <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags
  3. Uses tables for layout purposes, which is discourage by WP:ACCESS

Pppery 20:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is used by Legobot (talk · contribs) to build the RfC listing pages, see the pages transcluded into WP:RFC/A. It cannot be replaced by <blockquote>...</blockquote>, because blockquote doesn't handle multiple paragraphs at all well. If you don't like {{Rfcquote}}, talk to Legoktm (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 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).

Unused numtext subtemplates 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 Speedy delete: uncontroversial maintenance (WP:G6) by author (WP:G7). Jimp 04:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no longer needed after {{numtext}} was rewritten to use LUA. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 22 November 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).

Template:Order of Canada (CM) ribbon bar.png 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 Delete ~ Rob13Talk 07:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why you would need this when you can just include the image directly. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 22 November 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).

Template:Ordinal/th 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 Speedy delete: uncontroversial maintenance (WP:G6) by author (WP:G7). Jimp 04:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused subtemplate Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 22 November 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).

Template:PE_E_Arlington-Corona 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 07:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 22 November 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).

Template:Vasilios Maganas M45 Record 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 Delete; deleted as G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The record has been displaced. Trackinfo (talk) 20:21, 22 November 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).

Template:Youngspiration LegCo members 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 Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and only navigates between 3 articles Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no need for a navbox this small. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:36, 23 November 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).

Template:Westworld ratings 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 delete. Based on the discussion, there is no opposition to REFUNDing this template after Season 2 ends. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one season show. It doesn't need a separate template, it doesn't give anything more than the episode table does. Alex|The|Whovian? 16:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Season two has been renewed and the template is not even used in the main Westworld article or any page. Why does it matter if it's one season or two? "it doesn't give anything more than the episode table does" could be said to any other show, by that logic, we might aswell delete The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones rating template. AffeL (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not being used at all, this only strengthens the reason for its deletion. Template has no use and hence is redundant and useless; no reason for its existence. See similar template deletion discussion that was held at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 5 § Template:Arrow ratings and Template:The Flash ratings. Alex|The|Whovian? 16:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will be used in about two weeks time and I have now added the average score part. so it's not just about the specific episode ratings anymore. - AffeL (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the series is only one season. Ratings tables and graphs are used for series with a minimum of two seasons, typically more. Average also isn't available at the current time, so the template remains useless. Deletion also now has further support. Alex|The|Whovian? 17:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are gonna delete this, could you atleast "REDIRECT" it instead to the Westworld template, so that this template can be used later in two weeks, when the average rating of the season is out. Can't you wait two weeks? - AffeL (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks? What makes it valid in two weeks? The average viewers? That can be listed directly in the article, and hence making the graph unnecessary? This template will not be required until at least late next year. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, statistical cruft. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any reason to use graphs like this unless representing complicated data. The data doesn't get complicated until we have multiple seasons. No objection to WP:REFUND once the second season is completed. ~ Rob13Talk 04:59, 30 November 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).

Template:Db-redirtypo-notice 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 keep with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The text was altered substantially to address Champion's concern, so this is likely resolved. ~ Rob13Talk 04:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not explain how the R3 criterion in relevant as most of the text is about articles, practically useless. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't really understand the nomination reason; seems like good to notify editors if a redirect they created is up for speedy deletion. I removed the article-specific text. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:36, 23 November 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).

Template:Uw-thumb4 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 Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would we block people for using the wrong infobox syntax? The cases where I can see this template being useful seem better to deal with on a case-by-case basis (trying to figure out 'why' the user is persistently using improper syntax) rather than through template message escalation. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is for the case where a user has repeatedly ignored warnings. Has happened at least once before where a user has been told repeatedly and has ignored every warning and continued to insert the wrong syntax. It constitutes WP:Disruptive editing if they have been warned four separate times. It should also be noted that Template:Uw-thumb1 & Template:Uw-thumb2 have very detailed explanations as to why this is wrong and how to correct the issue. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a specialized template message for this. If a user is having serious problems with syntax they need a more nuanced response than a prefab warning progression. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:08, 22 November 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).

Template:Atlanta Crackers 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 Delete ~ Rob13Talk 04:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just 2 links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, we can connect the articles with standard in-article-linking. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NENAN, especially if there's only two links and the pages already link to each other. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 22 November 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).