Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22 edit

Template:2019 in Asian football (AFC) 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 2018 March 30. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (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:Whitecaps FC 2 squad 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. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

team is defunct Joeykai (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a defunct team. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a defunct team doesn't have a 'current' squad, so this is not needed. GiantSnowman 09:00, 23 March 2018 (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:Location map Maldives2 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; if this is useful, we should come up with a more descriptive name Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2018 (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:Now United 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 2018 March 30. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:52, 30 March 2018 (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:SCRIPPS NET 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Company is defunct as of today, all brands are now properties of Discovery Inc. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 22 March 2018 (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:McEvoy Group 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to need a navbox --woodensuperman 11:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The company has sold its magazines and now doesn't have enough links to need a navbox. --Shortride (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 22 March 2018 (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:Infobox baronetage 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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox baronetage with Template:Infobox family.
Same as bove. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, I think - would it not make more sense to merge Infobox:Baronetage with Infobox:Peerage, as they're both about hereditary titles? Eustachiusz (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that is accurate. See Baronet which says that "A baronetcy is the only British hereditary honour that is not a peerage [with some exceptions]". Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it sounds as though the baronetage and peerage infoboxes should be merged into a neutrally named template, such as Template:Infobox hereditary honour. Ibadibam (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments above that prevailed in preserving the Infobox:Peerage. Baronets are a unique form of hereditary honor, unlike peerages because they do not ennoble the bearer or his family, yet unlike ordinary families because of the title and precedence attached to them. They are such odd ducks, yet not rare in Britain, that it is very common for readers and editors to mistake them for knights or peers, and thus to err in the details about their proper exposition. The inbox helps by prodding correct information and display. FactStraight (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a merge with Infobox family, for reasons outlined here. The "Infobox baronetage" template looks like it's for describing just the arms of baronetcies. Peculiar, given the template's general name, but for the template as it stands, a merge with Template:Infobox coat of arms would make much more sense. --Inops (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a baronetage is NOT a family. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am with Wikimandia in saying that a baronetage is not considered a family. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the same thing. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:11, 30 March 2018 (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:Infobox emblem 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 2018 March 31. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:02, 31 March 2018 (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:Blazon-arms 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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Blazon-arms with Template:Infobox coat of arms wide.
Essentially a list of the same template. Better Template:Infobox coat of arms wide could be repeated instead in articles where that is needed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose —МандичкаYO 😜 04:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Blazon-arms is a flexible template that allows for varied descriptions, with variable width, and is primarily used for localities, usually the arms alone. The wide infobox supports a detailed description of a full heraldic achievement, usually for an individual. Merging would result in formatting problems on the pages where the templates are transcluded. Ibadibam (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ibadibam. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:11, 30 March 2018 (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:Armorial commune 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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Armorial commune with Template:Infobox coat of arms wide.
Pretty much the same thing, just designated solely for communes for no good reason. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - how do you know they were designed for communes for no good reason? What research did you do? —МандичкаYO 😜 04:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Armorial commune is designed specifically for French blazons, and just for arms alone. The wide infobox is for full heraldic achievements, blazoned in English only. Ibadibam (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ibadibam. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:12, 30 March 2018 (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:Location map DenmarkCIAx 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 2018 April 1. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (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:Infobox Austrian Landesstraße 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Unused this is used for shimming, my bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:55, 22 March 2018 (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:Ada Apa dengan Cinta? 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not having many links. Fails WP:EXISTING. Hddty. (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2018 (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:USC Trojans women's volleyball coach 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 delete. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EXISTING -- there are only two links for the coaches and it needs at least 4. Corky 03:35, 22 March 2018 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_22&oldid=833620615"