Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 22

[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).
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]
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; 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).
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).
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).
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]

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).
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]

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]
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 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).
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]
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 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]
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 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).
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).
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).
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).