March 22
- 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
- Delete No need for a defunct team.
Hhhhhkohhhhh (
talk) 07:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - a defunct team doesn't have a 'current' squad, so this is not needed.
Giant
Snowman 09:00, 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 Blades
Godric 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 --
wooden
superman 11:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The company has sold its magazines and now doesn't have enough links to need a navbox. --
Shortride (
talk) 14:24, 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
- Oppose, I think - would it not make more sense to merge Infobox:Baronetage with Infobox:Peerage, as they're both about hereditary titles?
Eustachiusz (
talk) 03:07, 16 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
- Oppose a merge with Infobox family, for reasons outlined
here. The "Infobox baronetage" template looks like it's for describing just the arms of baronetcies. Peculiar, given the template's general name, but for the template as it stands, a merge with
Template:Infobox coat of arms would make much more sense. --
Inops (
talk) 22:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - a baronetage is NOT a family.
—Мандичка
YO 😜 04:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - I am with Wikimandia in saying that a baronetage is not considered a family. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Not the same thing. --
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:11, 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 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
- Oppose
—Мандичка
YO 😜 04:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - Blazon-arms is a flexible template that allows for varied descriptions, with variable width, and is primarily used for localities, usually the arms alone. The wide infobox supports a detailed description of a full heraldic achievement, usually for an individual. Merging would result in formatting problems on the pages where the templates are transcluded.
Ibadibam (
talk) 21:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose per Ibadibam. --
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:11, 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 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
- Oppose - how do you know they were designed for communes for no good reason? What research did you do?
—Мандичка
YO 😜 04:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - Armorial commune is designed specifically for French blazons, and just for arms alone. The wide infobox is for full heraldic achievements, blazoned in English only.
Ibadibam (
talk) 21:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose per Ibadibam. --
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:12, 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 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).