June 2
Template:NSWPL 2010 Ladder
- 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) 11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
out-of-date; the updated table is already in the article Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 3 June 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).
Erie Lackawanna 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
S-line and related templates for the Erie Lackawanna Railroad which were entirely duplicative of either the Erie Railroad or the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad. I removed roughly a dozen transclusions. I can't think of any possible use that wouldn't duplicate one or the other. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 2 June 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).
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this navbox does not meet the soft requirement of WP:NENAN Izno (talk) 15:46, 2 June 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).
- 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. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3 main topics linked does not meet the soft WP:NENAN bar Izno (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not going to weigh in on this one, since I created the template, but that's an essay and hardly a reasonable justification for deletion, let alone a sole justification for deletion. But hey, whatever floats your boat, man. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you weighed in without weighing in? :) You can weigh in as the author--that's why authors get notified by default in Twinkle. I can expand the rationale: A series of games with no likelihood of expansion and not many links means these will all be well-linked in their pages and as such do not require a navbox. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- lol :) I should've said I'm not going to vote. There's four total links, which I assume would suffice. I don't agree that there's no likelihood of expansion either. Choplifter HD could easily have its own article, there are plenty of reliable sources, which would put it over the soft "three main series" entry criteria. Was considering creating the article until this TFD came up. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there was a Choplifter HD article, but it was redirected. Might clean it up and add some sources and link it. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-created and sourced Choplifter HD. If this template gets deleted, it's not for lack of trying. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough entries to warrant a navbox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Main topic up to 4. Secondary group up to 3. That enough? --Jtalledo (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Barely, but yes, it now has enough to be kept. Withdrawing my previous delete vote in favor of keep. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per WP:NENAN. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 9 June 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:Silent Scope series
- 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) 01:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3 links does not meet the soft requirement of WP:NENAN Izno (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough entries to warrant a navbox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 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:Sleeping Dogs
- 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) 01:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
one main article and a bunch of already well-linked articles from that one main article. doesn't meet the bar for WP:NENAN Izno (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough entries to warrant a navbox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 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:Video games based on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling
- 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) 01:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the bar for WP:NENAN. Izno (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough entries to warrant a navbox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 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:Latter Day Saint biography
- 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 subst and delete (or otherwise merge with the articles). Primefac (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And all subtemplates. Move to d: and draw data from there (which is the purpose of the site). There is no need for persondata or infoboxes based on religion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion on whether the template should exist or not, but if deleted we should wait for the closure of this RfC before deciding on whether to implement the proposed solution or replace with a different local template. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deletion and move to wikidata, per my opposition in that RfC. No point holding this discussion IMO until that RfC is closed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete (without moving to Wikidata) as a large number of unnecessary single-use templates. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (struck ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)))[reply]
- From checking them, vast majority are used twice, some more. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete as unnecessary moving of content away from the article. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified the wikiproject; noting not too much of an opinion on substing and deleting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- merge content with the articles, no need to separate the content from the articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after merging with the articles per nom. We can use the standard method of keeping content in the articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:18, 12 June 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).
- 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 June 11. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 11 June 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).
- 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. NPASR if there is a different rationale provided. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NAVBOX with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are now more than two links. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there are now enough links. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Three valid entries is not really enough to warrant keeping this. Two unknowns and two redlinks should not factor in. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as more articles have now been created. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – there are three active links, but there should be at least four at the very minimum. Corky 16:54, 6 June 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).
- 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. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Peruvian Armed Forces with Template:Military of Peru.
The majority of articles use the "Template:Military of XXXX" method when naming the templates of national militaries. Neighboring countries such as Colombia and Ecuador have the "Template:Military of Colombia" and the "Template:Military of Ecuador" naming method. This naming method is more organized and provides an easier option for users/readers seeking templates regarding national militaries. --ZiaLater (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: Per discussion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Thank you for the initial support. ----ZiaLater (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dissident93, are you okay with this nomination being withdrawn or do you still feel the templates require merging? Primefac (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
- Well if there is consensus now against it, then I don't feel the need to continue with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 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:CSU Asesoft Ploiești current roster
- 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) 12:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Team dissolved in 2015 as CSU Ploiești. Therefore, a current roster isn't applicable anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 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).