August 25
- 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 2017 September 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 6 September 2017 (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 2017 September 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 6 September 2017 (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:Atlas Shrugged
- 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) 05:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the links in this navbox are also in the ((Ayn Rand)) navbox, which is also present at the bottom of all the linked articles. Therefore this template is redundant. RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, delete per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I always prefer to separate content into a template for a specific work it it is possible. I missed the discussion at Template talk:Atlas Shrugged, but it seems that the decision was made to merge this content into ((Ayn Rand)). If a reader wants to find content related to the novel, it is easiest to find if presented as a separate template. I don't think all of this content really belongs in the broader template, but it seems that a decision has been made.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the links would be (and already were) in ((Ayn Rand)) regardless. The link to the novel is obviously going to be there, and the links to the films would be in the section on adaptations. I don't see a reason to have a separate template just to add a couple of other links that were easily added to the more comprehensive template. It's not as if ((Ayn Rand)) is so gigantic that a reader would have trouble finding the links related to Atlas Shrugged. --RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unnecessary and redundant. Michipedian (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- keep!. AlfaRocket (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your reasoning? I see no reason to keep it. It's all covered in the Ayn Rand template. What's the point? Michipedian (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:T3 and per nom. No need for multiple navboxes with the same links or additional navboxes with a subset of the same links. --woodensuperman 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- insufficient navigation with its focus on one work (and the links are mostly for a 3 part movie). Also: redundant to the Ayn Rand template. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2017 (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:Callimachus
- 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 , but no problem with restoring it if more articles are written. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. woodensuperman (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Each of the works of Callimachus listed in the template are deserving of their own article, perhaps the existence of the template will inspire the creation of the missing articles. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, until more articles are written. navigation boxes are for navigating between existing articles, redlinks in lists in articles are for inspiring the creation of the missing articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nom and Frietjes. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete!. AlfaRocket (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as in this instance a navbox with a small number of links is slightly more appropriate than having these links listed in a "see also" section. Also noting that the previous TfD discussion from 2015 resulted in "keep". – Uanfala 22:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We routinely delete small navboxes even where there is potential, because the current WP:REDLINK/WP:NAVBOX allowance for navboxes with red links only pertains to those being worked actively. It is evident, given that the template was nominated two years ago, that those articles are not being created. A list on Callimachus and a link from the children to the parent would do just as well. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2017 (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).
Redundant Doctor Who Episode head/body
- 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) 05:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous uses of these templates have been replaced with the standard Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list templates and therefore are no longer required. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed, unnecessary. -- AlexTW 00:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because Dresken orphaned these templates without first obtaining consensus, and even after objections were raised (see User talk:Dresken#Episode Tables), they continued. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all large edits need consensus; I see nothing wrong with the edits to implement the more widely-used template, and there's no need for two different templates that can do the same thing. Dresken also stated that they would fix any problems it caused, such as the in-links. -- AlexTW 08:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Redrose64, I suggested a solution for the concern you raised, as I never recieved a response I could only presume you had no further objections. I feel I waited a reasonable amount of time for your response before implementing the solution and then continuing. Please note that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a valid method of obtaining consensus. However I cannot see the sense in keeping templates around unused, so is there actually a reason you would want these templates used again or restored when the standard episode templates displays the same information and fulfils the same functionality? Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult for me to respond in "a reasonable amount of time" when I spend ten or more hours away from home each day. Sometimes it takes two or even three days to work through a watchlist backlog. I note that you continued your conversions a couple of days later - but still persisted with WP:LDR in articles that had never used that technique. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. The issues with LDR are irrelevant to this forum and can be continued to be discussed elsewhere. Usually it is preferable to move the template through the TFD process prior to deprecation, but if nothing was lost (and it appears nothing was, according to the discussion Dresken's talk page), I see no reason to harp on bureaucracy. --Izno (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2017 (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:Prussian Royal Family
- 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 to delete, so keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pure fantasy, these titles don't exist. Wikipedia is a place to be factual not a place to play at kings and queens. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Standard template format for European royal families, most of which do not actually reign anymore. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, royalty that has been fictional for almost a hundred years. —Kusma (t·c) 20:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but Revert to the version of 27 February 2017, before the absurd IP edits. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It still has absurd "HRH"s in it that even the article on Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia does not use, and lists many non-notable children that do not even have articles. —Kusma (t·c) 12:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep its very useful. AlfaRocket (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If the HRH is problematic it is a problem in the other templates of this sort. Template:Dutch Royal Family also has non-notable children listed. Could not find any style guide indicating everything in a template must be linked or have articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Netherlands are a monarchy, Prussia has not been one for almost a hundred years (and has ceased existing more than 70 years ago). There is no "Prussia" and it doesn't have a royal family. —Kusma (t·c) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with either a delete (due to lack of navigation provided by the sidebar) or a trimming down to the sole links per the tenants of WP:NAVBOX. Sidebars and navboxes exist to navigate, not simply to list items of interest. --Izno (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I realize that this template refers to the formerly-reigning family of a former state, but it is still very useful for readers to be able to see this type of list of family members. Also, this template is consistent with the format used in similar templates of other European royal families, including formerly-reigning ones. Moreover, the German government officially recognizes Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia: for example, the website of the President of Germany shows the President (at that time) with Georg Friedrich here, and the caption states Abendessen zu Ehren von Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen aus Anlass des 300. Jahrestages des Geburtstages von Friedrich II., which translates as "Dinner in honour of Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the birthday of Frederick II". Since the highest office of the German government officially recognizes him (and even held a dinner in his honour), surely that is a good additional reason for this template to be retained. -- Blairall (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Standard template independent om immediate national context. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2017 (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:Uw-longterm4im
- 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⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should meet WP:DENY because it's dependent on nonexistent page Template:uw-longterm page was deleted a year ago 209.249.5.130 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- what has changed since the discussion in April? Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete (or redirect) given the deletion rationale for ((Uw-longterm)). Jc86035 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete!. AlfaRocket (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The other levels do not exist and Template:Uw-longterm was deleted per WP:DENY. So this template should be deleted. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 27 August 2017 (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:NCAA Season 91 men's volleyball elims results
- 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 after merging with the articles Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
single-use template, should be merged with the article. no need for a separate template. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Since this is a mass-nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Either delete or replacement with an appropriate template is fine for me, since I would guess there are some standardized results templates lying around. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2017 (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. It looks like these were added to History of the Loop (CTA) while the discussion was in progress. Feel free to renominate if you still wish to see them deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
unused Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; as with ((East Coast Main Line diagram)) these are being kept in template space because they are not articles and we don't have an Appendix namespace. They're linked to from ((The Loop (CTA))) for additional historical context. Some people do occasionally click on those links, so I think they're somewhat useful. Jc86035 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jc86035, why is these not in an article? are they too trivial for inclusion in an article? what is the source for the maps? I would think there would be public domain images showing the maps, which would be useful to but in a gallery, or to have a "history of the Loop" article containing the maps. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep!. AlfaRocket (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Useddenim, since subpages aren't enabled in mainspace, The Loop (CTA)/History should probably be merged with the main The Loop (CTA) article or retitled to "History of the Loop (CTA)". Jc86035 (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Lost on Belmont (talk · contribs) created these diagrams — I'm sure with the intent to use them – but he hasn't been active for a couple of weeks (summer vacation?), so I would suggest putting this nomination on hold until we hear from him. Useddenim (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2017 (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).