March 30
Usprimary templates
- 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Campaignbox Sully's Expedition Against the Sioux in Dakota Territory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is only used on two articles, and the template only refers to a single article (Battle of Killdeer Mountain). This should be deleted, but I wouldn't object to recreation if there are more articles on the topic in the future. Merging to an broader topic template might also make sense. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Yes, it is a campaign with one battle. Why do you think it should be deleted? This argument comes up from time to time on Campaignboxes with one or few battles. Some of this information can be found on the template's talk page, but I'll expand on it here and also add this to the talk page discussion. A little history on the origins of these Campaign templates is in order. They originally all came from following this list from the Civil War Sites Advisory Committee at the National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program, and as you can see, there are many on the list that have only one battle. It may be counter–intuitive, but a campaignbox with just one battle in it actually imparts value. It's important to understand what a Military campaign is and is not. It is not merely a list of battles. To over simplify, a campaign is strategic while a battle is tactical. A campaign can cover thousands of miles with zero, one, or few battles fought. It could be argued that the most successful campaign would achieve its goals with not a single battle fought and zero casualties on either side – but with the strategic aims of its planner fulfilled. These campaign lists were developed as they were for a reason, by professional historians, and changing them to be grouped, for example, geographically with other battles that are part of a different campaign, loses context and conflates campaigns which may have been carried out in different years and planned by different commanders. And having a campaignbox, even one with only one battle, also gives a consistent appearance on every battle article that is part of the WP:MILHIST project. I believe that's part of the WP:MILHIST style guide, but I'm not 100% certain. A campaignbox with one battle still imparts information of the CWSAC campaign name (for example Template:Campaignbox Jackson's Operations Against the B&O Railroad) and also gives a starting point for an article on the campaign itself as in Streight's Raid and for adding minor battles and skirmishes not rated by the CWSAC such as Template:Campaignbox Mine Run Campaign where the minor engagement Battle of Charlestown was added at some point by an editor to join the CWSAC rated Battle of Mine Run. Mojoworker (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Normally I would say speedy delete a template with only one link, but, if you look at how these templates are used, it makes perfect sense to retain it. This gives consistency throughout the series of articles. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly counterintuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't navigate anywhere, but I think the argument given for keeping these (that we use campaignboxes for information on what battles constituted a campaign, and that a campaign need not be a series) is cogent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, when viewed strictly as a navigation template, I better understand the deletion proposal – it doesn't navigate anywhere – which I had overlooked. But yes, a Campaignbox is really something more than merely a navigation template. Last summer, Kirill and I even worked up a sandbox version that allowed the inclusion of a campaign map… Mojoworker (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2012 (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.
Template:Nuestra Sinota De Guadalupe, 1536
Template:Capitalization
- 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Capitalization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Category:Pages with several capitalization mistakes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template can be replaced by ((Copy edit|for=Capitalization)). (I have done this for articles so tagged up to this evening).This is an improvement, as it will include the tagged article in the copy edit categories that are serviced by the monthly GOCE drives. Stfg (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (Disclaimer: I'm a coord of WP:GOCE.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, orphan, template, nominate. Why not discuss, fix? I added the Copy edit cats to the template, you get your bread, capitals specialist get their jam. Keep Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. You haven't justified why people shouldn't be able to use Category:Pages with several capitalization mistakes. Superm401 - Talk 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fixing this type of error is part of copy editing, and a separate template is not needed. (Disclaimer: I'm a coord of WP:GOCE.) -- Dianna (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a redundant template. —Torchiest talkedits 00:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Contributers come here with many different levels of abilities. It is perfectly possible that someone who is comfortable just doing capitalisation fixes might not have the ability to do other copyediting tasks. SpinningSpark 20:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, is there evidence that this template is actually used? It seems like if someone notices a capitalization problem in an article, it's no more effort to just fix it than it is to tag the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator orphaned it. And you are right if its a capitalization problem, but often it is whole chunks of capitalized text, or nouns treated as common nouns, some of which may be correct. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (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.
Template:North Queensland Fury FC squad