Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 27 August 29 >

August 28 edit

Template:Panch Kedar edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 September 5. ✗plicit 00:34, 5 September 2022 (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 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sidebar duplicates much of the {{2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine}} navbox, including basically the entire Military engagements section. I don't really see how a forked template will serve to benefit readers, and this only means more work for editors who must continually update both templates at the same time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I doubt this is a fork. But, perhaps the scope of the sidebar should be minimized to a certain number of key articles to avoid being too close to the navbox. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a decent solution to avoid the clutter of the campaignbox is to instead create campaignboxes for each offensive (Kyiv, South, East, Northeast, possibly summer counteroffensive/Donbas), although I'm not sure what to do with the 2022 invasion campaignbox. Jebiguess (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i agree, the only difference is that i think Donbas and the summer counteroffensive should be included in the same campaignbox as their respective campaigns (Donbas in the eastern Ukraine offensive and summer counteroffensive in the southern one), but separated inside the campaignbox (just like it is now on the 2022 invasion campaignbox where every offensive is separated but still inside the same campaignbox), because they're different offensives but still inside the same campaign, region and scope. 2804:14D:4482:46D:A00B:B77E:8E98:2EBC (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same here, Agree with Jebiguess.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What does that exactly fix? Super Ψ Dro 10:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not nessesary, other options are better than deleting.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it would be irresponsible to delete Great Mercian (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Campaignbox templates are nothing new, we already have hundreds of them. I removed some articles from the template that weren't related to the campaignbox. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that it would be highly irresponsible to delete, especially without a preexisting replacement set of individual campaign boxes. This seems common sense to me.
I do slightly agree that the campaignbox is getting a bit generously proportioned. But that's not uncommon. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All wars need campaignboxes with all major battles listed, and this is the one for the Ukraine invasion. EkoGraf (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an ongoing war that will undoubtedly change politics in Europe at the very least, deleting it fixes absolutely nothing in my humble viewpoint. I agree with User:EkoGraf that this deserves its own campaign box for major battles, of which there have been several.. Peralien (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This campaignbiox should continued otherwise the value of information would too great to lose. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This template under discussion appears to be somewhat dated, and it does not distinguish between Phase One and Phase Two of the operation at all. For example, the Kiev part of the 2022 Invasion has effectively been defunct since 7 April, however, it is listed at the top of the template campaign box. It seems that this discussion here would be more informed if someone were to at least update the Campaignbox to reflect Phase One and Phase Two of the operation in the same way that the 2022 Invasion article distinguishes these two phases. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nav boxes and campaign boxes are not mutually exclusive and the campaign box is arguably more useful (I rarely use the nav boxes). There is a degree of duplication. Whether this is reasonable or necessary is a matter for consensus to remedy but can be resolved by editing rather than deletion. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2022 (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:Hindu temples in Myanmar edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 September 5. ✗plicit 00:33, 5 September 2022 (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:Sisaket F.C. squad edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and outdated. Current roster probably does not have enough articles for the players for the team for the navbox to remain if updated. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, out of date and no point updating. GiantSnowman 17:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they play in a regional league, most of their current players won't be notable, and so template is not needed even if it could be updated from an up-to-date reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2022 (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:Sisaket F.C. edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two links. One to the stadium the team plays. And to the province where the team plays. The latter of which has no relevance to the team. Fails the minimum for navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, serves no useful purpose. GiantSnowman 17:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the links are redlinks, and don't think they'll actually ever be created (as we don't need a separate article for the history of a club whose main page is a stub). As such, not enough actual relevant links to justify a template. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2022 (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:UKUSA edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 uses that would be better served directly in the articles of interest. Izno (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2022 (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:Network Layer Service Model edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, insufficient complexity. Izno (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2022 (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:Wikipedia size & users edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 September 5. ✗plicit 00:04, 5 September 2022 (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:Chola occupation monarchs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Given its use, I'd recommend deletion, as it's not the focus of the page of interest. All the other info is more or less already contained in it. Izno (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2022 (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:House of Hohenstaufen edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template that duplicates article content. Recommend deletion instead of substing. Izno (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2022 (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:Dravidian languages genealogy edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, insufficiently complex. Izno (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2022 (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:Population pyramid cambodia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming duplicate of Template:Population pyramid, used only once. Izno (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2022 (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:Image Universe edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2022 (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:Iranian Flags edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, recommend subst. Izno (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (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:Nigerian symbols edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Izno (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (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:Conradine dynasty edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. Given the content, should probably be simply deleted. The page of interest already has an infobox and communicates the information of interest I believe. Izno (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2022 (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:Anomalous cancellation in calculus edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only two pages. One of those pages should leave it to the other per SUMMARY, but either way this is insufficiently complex. Izno (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Done subst: cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:36, 28 August 2022 (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:Image-warn edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient warning about speedy deletions of images, transcluded on only some half dozen pages. Clearly not maintained or used, and we have obvious alternatives today. Izno (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2022 (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:Timenavbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Izno (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2022 (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:6TeamBracket-Cust edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{6TeamBracket-info}}. – Pbrks (t • c) 16:22, 28 August 2022 (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:Ancient Greek and Roman wars edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with both Template:Ancient Greek wars and Template:Ancient Roman Wars; no compelling reason for combination of the two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:31, 28 August 2022 (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:Germany squad 2022 FIFA World Cup edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No squad has yet been announced, WP:TOOSOON. Should be created once an official announcement has been made. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2022 (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:16TeamBracket-Compact-DoubleElim3 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:16TeamBracket-2Elim-A. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2022 (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/2022_August_28&oldid=1108540212"