The result of the discussion was no consensus. AGK ■ 20:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that I have stripped this of supporters of this movement, which should never have been included, as the individuals are not intrinsically linked sufficiently either to the movement or to each other to warrant navbox inclusion, and placement of this navbox on their pages was causing serious WP:UNDUE issues, there is very little left to navigate. Of the remaining six links, three are redirects to other articles, leaving three actual links, only two of which mention the People's Vote. As much as I support the movement, I cannot support the navbox! ;) -- wooden superman 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Now that I have stripped this of supporters of this movement, is usually seen as an attempt to load the debate before it starts. I note that you're doing just the same thing elsewhere too, on Category:QI, Category:Time Team and {{ Ruth Goodman}}.
giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.You said it was WP:UNDUE diff. People's Vote is a grassroots coordinating group (GCG) People's Vote#Early history, it is a number of different organisations that moved into the same office together at Millbank, London People's Vote#Organisation. As such it is a collective rather than there being "founders", however I've tweaked the template to say "people" rather than "supporters". -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
navbox on the Independent. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A sidebar is still a navigation template. You don't need both performing the same function.I was responding to that. If you've now decided it
has nothing to do with the issue at handthen okay. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
those who are in favour of keeping the navbox, the majority also favour stripping out all but the "founders"- how many is that? The first 2 comments oppose getting rid of the nav box & oppose the heavy-handed blanking & deleting the template from other articles with the argument being
well now I've completely butchered it (pre-discussion), we may as well get rid of the rest. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs ( talk) 07:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This template doesn't add anything to Template:Football in Portugal which is also present on the same pages of this. A.Caseiro ( talk) 12:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 11:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Unused (I orphaned the only transclusion) to a rarely used website (I only found one other article linking to it by other means). If the point is to keep a large amount of links up to date it fails both tasks because there aren't many and both the domain and the wikilink are on different topics than they were in 2011. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. This discussion will be closed early as there is unanimous consensus that Template:Strong oppose should be deleted. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs ( talk) 19:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
!vote symbols are against consensus. {{ Oppose}}, {{ Support}}, and {{ Strong support}} have been repeatedly deleted and are indeed all salted (please see deletion logs). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs ( talk) 08:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this template is a proper use of the infobox format. It's a derivative of Template:Infobox Chinese, but unlike the parent template, which is used to show local variants of a shared-etymology word, this template only accepts a Thai spelling and its RTGS transcription, information which should already be presented in the first sentence of an article. As such it doesn't provide any benefit, and would potentially add to a page's infobox clutter. Paul_012 ( talk) 08:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Similar to this previous discussion in June 2018, as networks have their own navboxes, and it's unnecessary to have genre-based navbox templates for a nationality; this is better suited to category navigation. Allied45 ( talk) 03:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 October 8. (non-admin closure) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. AGK ■ 20:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that I have stripped this of supporters of this movement, which should never have been included, as the individuals are not intrinsically linked sufficiently either to the movement or to each other to warrant navbox inclusion, and placement of this navbox on their pages was causing serious WP:UNDUE issues, there is very little left to navigate. Of the remaining six links, three are redirects to other articles, leaving three actual links, only two of which mention the People's Vote. As much as I support the movement, I cannot support the navbox! ;) -- wooden superman 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Now that I have stripped this of supporters of this movement, is usually seen as an attempt to load the debate before it starts. I note that you're doing just the same thing elsewhere too, on Category:QI, Category:Time Team and {{ Ruth Goodman}}.
giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.You said it was WP:UNDUE diff. People's Vote is a grassroots coordinating group (GCG) People's Vote#Early history, it is a number of different organisations that moved into the same office together at Millbank, London People's Vote#Organisation. As such it is a collective rather than there being "founders", however I've tweaked the template to say "people" rather than "supporters". -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
navbox on the Independent. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A sidebar is still a navigation template. You don't need both performing the same function.I was responding to that. If you've now decided it
has nothing to do with the issue at handthen okay. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
those who are in favour of keeping the navbox, the majority also favour stripping out all but the "founders"- how many is that? The first 2 comments oppose getting rid of the nav box & oppose the heavy-handed blanking & deleting the template from other articles with the argument being
well now I've completely butchered it (pre-discussion), we may as well get rid of the rest. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs ( talk) 07:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This template doesn't add anything to Template:Football in Portugal which is also present on the same pages of this. A.Caseiro ( talk) 12:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 11:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Unused (I orphaned the only transclusion) to a rarely used website (I only found one other article linking to it by other means). If the point is to keep a large amount of links up to date it fails both tasks because there aren't many and both the domain and the wikilink are on different topics than they were in 2011. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. This discussion will be closed early as there is unanimous consensus that Template:Strong oppose should be deleted. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs ( talk) 19:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
!vote symbols are against consensus. {{ Oppose}}, {{ Support}}, and {{ Strong support}} have been repeatedly deleted and are indeed all salted (please see deletion logs). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs ( talk) 08:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this template is a proper use of the infobox format. It's a derivative of Template:Infobox Chinese, but unlike the parent template, which is used to show local variants of a shared-etymology word, this template only accepts a Thai spelling and its RTGS transcription, information which should already be presented in the first sentence of an article. As such it doesn't provide any benefit, and would potentially add to a page's infobox clutter. Paul_012 ( talk) 08:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Similar to this previous discussion in June 2018, as networks have their own navboxes, and it's unnecessary to have genre-based navbox templates for a nationality; this is better suited to category navigation. Allied45 ( talk) 03:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 October 8. (non-admin closure) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)