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).
Only four entries, with each one of them holding a more prominent role during the same tenure, (such as owner, head coach, or GM; all of which have their own separate navboxes). ~ Dissident93(talk) 23:06, 18 February 2020 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is a campaign with one battle. These come up from time to time at TfD for Campaignboxes with one or few battles. Some of this information can be found on the template's talk page, but I'll repeat/expand on it here. Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Archive 6#American_Civil War campaignbox_templates 2. As you can see, the template series started something like 17 years ago (in the earliest days of Wikipedia). From that discussion, they originally all came from following the information at http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm from the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission at the National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program. They updated the website about a year ago, so here's the archive link and as you can see, there are many on the list that have only one battle. The information is still live today on the NPS website here and here. But really, a Campaignbox is actually something more than merely a navigation template. 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, 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. In any case, almost all – if not all – Civil War battle articles have one, usually transcluded through the campaignbox parameter of ((Infobox military conflict)). 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) 06:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless template. A navigation template is meant to navigate readers from and to articles. If this has only one link, to what exactly is it navigating to? --Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Campaignbox series of templates are not really navigation templates, even though they are descended from navbox. They are not at the bottom of the page as typical navboxes, but rather function as an extension to the infobox through the campaignbox parameter of ((Infobox military conflict)). And from WP:MILMOS#NAVit is also beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope. Mojoworker (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments. First, lets refute Campaignbox series of templates are not really navigation templates [...] They are not at the bottom of the page as typical navboxes - Navigation templates do not have to be only at the bottom, see WP:SIDEBAR. Now again, after we've cleared up any misunderstanding of what a navigation template is, we can look at the link you provided at WP:MILMOS#NAV which starts with the words The various navigation templates. I really fail to see how you can twist the meaning of the word "navigation" to literally mean anything other than navigation. And again, in this case, the template has only one link, which is the article in question, so a reader being on the article in question does not need to see a link to the same article. This is really a simple wikipedia concept, as you wouldn't link Foo in the article Foo. Also, to the editor bellow me You couldn't delete individual campaignboxes even in the unlikely event this was closed as delete complete nonsense. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said it's not "merely" a navigation template, and you conveniently ignore the "consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within (MILHISTs) scope". No, the reader doesn't need the navigation link, but they do need to know the campaign it was part of in context – that's the consistent appearance mentioned at WP:MILMOS. Do you really need me to split the current article into one about Quantrill's Raid into Kansas and another about the Lawrence Massacre? If so, I can certainly do so, but I have other priorities I'd rather do first. Mojoworker (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need you to do anything. Especially something you don't want. That has no relevance to whether this template is needed or not. Also, you keep mentioning the connection of this template to ((Infobox military conflict)), yet this template has no connection to it and neither does the article Lawrence massacre use that infobox. If all you need is to mention that this battle was part of "Quantrill's Raid into Kansas" then use the correct template and do it. --Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the "correct" template. And its relation to ((Infobox military conflict)) is through the last parameter of the infobox template. From the Infobox military conflict template docs: campaignbox – optional – optional field for appending a campaignbox template to the bottom of the infobox, which allows both boxes to float as a single element (useful if there are subsequent left floating images, which would otherwise not be able to float above the campaign box); the template must be specified in the format ((Campaignbox XYZ)). There's also the whole section on Campaignboxes right after that at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc#Campaignboxes which reiterates that campaignbox templates are "intended to provide context and convenient navigation". As to splitting the article – eventually all the campaigns should probably have their own articles, but per WP:NORUSH I don't know how soon that'll happen. But if that's the only way to avoid deletion, I can stub something out if necessary, and build it out as time permits. Mojoworker (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. I understand some of the confusion. I didn't realize that an IP changed the infobox to infobox civilian attack in October without discussion. I've changed it back to use Infobox military conflict which it originally had been using since 2006. Mojoworker (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe User:Mojoworker has successfully refuted the arguments presented here for deletion, such as they are. There are campaigns in any war which occurred over a given period of time, but for which only one (or perhaps no) combat action occurred. Determining which campaigns are which and what actions occurred in them, we leave to reliable sources. I see no reliable sources presented here which refute National Park Service classifications, created by CWSAC scholars recognized as ACW authorities by the NPS. Further, as Mojoworker has demonstrated, campaignboxes may serve an incidental navigation function, but their primary intent is classification. If somebody wants to start deleting campaignboxes, they'll have to get WP:MILHIST to completely rethink one of the tools ((Infobox military conflict)) transcluded on over 18,000 pages. So you'd need a wide-ranging and broad-based consensus, and certainly better arguments than the ones presented here. You couldn't delete individual campaignboxes even in the unlikely event this was closed as delete, because eventually a content-expert editor who recognizes it's missing will just put it back. BusterD (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and have their work G4ed. "Users may ignore consensus" is simply not a valid argument. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely saying the template was a function of the infobox and that content-area experts would eventually find a need for the template (as Mojoworker has now done). Given the strength of the deletion argument presented, I can only point out that "per Gonnym" and "per nom" are themselves invalid arguments. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other skirmishes have been added to the template and one of those skirmishes is now an article. All given reasons for deletion have now been refuted or obviated. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2020 (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:2017–18 Svenska Cupen mbox
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).
Unused ombox template that has only red links. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (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:2016OlympicShootingSchedule
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).
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (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:2016OlympicRowingSchedule
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 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:2012OlympicShootingSchedule
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).
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (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:2001–02 Biathlon World Cup
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).
Unused sidebar that only contains three links to mainspace articles. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (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:2000–01 Biathlon World Cup
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).
Unused sidebar template that only contains three article links. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (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).
Just three transclusions, one in an archive and the other two by one user (User:Bubba73, who could assist by kindly subst: or replacing it). Redundant to ((Can't retire)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((Can't retire)) per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: It was relisted because there isn't a consensus yet. There is one delete and one redirect vote. However, once a consensus is reached, the discussion can be closed without waiting another seven days. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are three people who think this template - a template with just one transclusion, and that in an archive - should be done away with, and none whatsoever who think it should be kept. That's consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I know that no one wants the template to be kept. However, there are two people who want it deleted and one who wants it redirected. It was relisted so that there further consensus can be determined for whether the template should be deleted or redirected. As I said, this nomination doesn't have to wait another seven days for it to be closed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that once the template is deleted, anyone can create the proposed redirect, the point is moot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree that this template is redundant, and personally I don't see the value of deleting the template as opposed to redirecting it (for as mentioned above, anyone could simply recreate and redirect the template once it's deleted anyways, rendering the deletion pointless). Perhaps the latter opinion of mine is simply due to my lack of experience in this field, however. TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername 07:05, 2 March 2020 (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 delete. There is consensus to delete this. (non-admin closure)Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with just two links. One of which is at AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlanta was the South's biggest city. The Yankees of the Southern league. The team with the money. Can expect it to be needed. Cake (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for a navbox for two articles. Can be recreated if needed and expanded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Navbox now has four links
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2020 (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:Wordinal to number
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not used on any pages and it is basically useless since it only supports numbers between 0 and 99. The template hasn't been edited in a while so I see no sign of the issue being resolved. – BrandonXLF (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would have been used by now if it were useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (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).