October 22
Template:Historical Islamic States
- 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) Nihlus 00:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It makes 0.0% sense to have such kind of template based on religion. It would open the doors for similar irrelevant/obsolete templates, such as "Historical Christian states" or "Historical Buddhist states". Besides, we already have a template that effectively tackles the matter and is of much more use; [1]
Having 10 more WP:POVFORK templates based on religion (i.e. "Muslim", "Christian", "Jewish") is just WP:UNDUE in every sense of the word. It should therefore be deleted in my opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:31, 22 October 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Mudcrutch with Template:Tom Petty.
―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - No rationale provided by nominator. I see no reason to merge these two as they are separate groups. Nihlus 00:32, 22 October 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation; per the recent discussion at Notability:People: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross recipients, the awarding of the Knight's Cross was deemed not to confer presumed notability on the recipients. The template thus does not serve a useful navigational purpose and is indiscriminate.
The appropriate Category:Recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross already exists and is sufficient for navigation. Similar templates have been deleted in the past, such as TFD:KC recipients of the 1st ID (multi-TfD);
TfD:KC recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet; TfD:KC recipients of the 4th SS Division (multi-TfD), and more. In addition, I'm nominating the following "KC recipient by X" templates; the nominating rationale applies equally to them as well:
- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I oppose these deletions, and the previous ones, which were not discussed sufficiently. These are useful in identifying of Knights Cross recipients, and helpful in organizing, and identifying units participating in the war. @MHIST. auntieruth (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom's comment -- the intitial discussions were reasonably well attended, for example: KC recipients in the Bundeswehr; Related KC recipients; and KC recipients in the U-boat service, etc. They were all deleted. In addition, the suggestion that these are helpful in (...) identifying units participating in the war does not make much sense. The units have their own templates, such as Template:Infantry Divisions of the Wehrmacht, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose in favour of Renaming. Per WP:NOTDUPE, an existing category does not serve as a valid argument for deletion. While I agree with the outcome of the notability discussion, these templates do in fact serve a navigational purpose as an identifier for linking individual people to individual units. I would be instead be in favour of removing the "Knight's Cross recipients" from the title of these templates and renaming them as something like "Soldiers who served in x", which would also allow the inclusion in the templates of non-Knights Cross holders associated with those divisions (some more than others; for example for Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 6th ID (not currently listed but could be deleted on similar reasoning) from just the commanders list 6 more could be included). Alcherin (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would also support the creation of likewise templates for other nations, spanning different periods. Alcherin (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - division is anything from 8000 upwards. Is it reasonable to link members of such large group at this level? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GraemeLeggett: The number of notable individual per division is not that large; mostly generals and / or divisional commanders who qualify under WP:SOLDIER. That said, the flat list of divisional personnel is not that useful. This is much better handled via "succession boxes" which include information on who preceded who and the timeframe of each command. Sample: in Hülsen, following References. Such templates as listed in the nomination ("Award recipients by unit") do not exist for other militaries of WW2, and they strike me as unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: I'm trying to get a handle on the utility of theses templates. Say I'm at a article on infantry commander A in Division M who receives an Iron Cross in the battle of X. Would I expect navbox to take me to Tank commander B also in Division M but in battle of Y two years later, or to infantry commander C of Division N which was also at the battle of X? Strikes me that other than being under command of a given division at the time there may not actually be any great association between links in templat. In which case navbox isn't being useful and should be deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GraemeLeggett: The original templates were more elaborate, listing all soldiers of a particular unit, by sub-unit, even those without articles: 2015 sample. The intention was apparently to create an awardee list for each unit, which also provided incoming links to any article that was on the template.
- The template essentially acted as lists of "Knight's Cross recipients by X unit". However, where such lists existed, they have been deleted. See for example this Template:Knight's Cross recipients lists -- the red links are the lists that are now gone. Sample AfD: AfD:KC recipients of SS Polizei Division. I would agree with you that "there may not actually be any great association between links in template", apart from belonging to the unit at the time that the award was made. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose still I'm okay with renaming, but not with obliterating the Knights Cross recipients. If it's unreasonable to list recipients by division, then a template with a "soldiers who served in x" would be reasonable, but it would also need a subtemplate that lists the men and women who received the awards. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 27 October 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:Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
- 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) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 transclusions. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:36, 22 October 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:NRHP redirect cleanup needed
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, outdated Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Not an argument. I have had several cleanup templates I created deleted thanks to radical unusedazis like you. You can go take your "unused" and KMF (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC) it.[reply]
-
- Yes, @KATMAKROFAN: shouldn't be using personal attacks out of frustration. But "unused" is certainly not a reason for deletion, editors should please stop using that on a daily basis and either use the template or let's create a list of unused well-formed templates which should be placed on the pages listed. That seems the common sense way to handle unused templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 1. it is a cleanup needed template, it is good that it is currently unused. 2. It is of historical interest having to do with huge war within Wikipedia WikiProject NRHP and WikiProject Connecticut, at least. It could perhaps be marked "historical" in some way, but that is not deleting it. Actually, what is the TFD proposal, is that for Discussion or Deletion. I don't see any argument for deletion provided. --doncram 04:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, unused is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. If an editor finds an unused template which is usable, maybe either use it, move on, or create a list of unused templates for use. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 28 October 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:Mediated
- 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 keep. Merge proposals etc. may be discussed at talk page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Mediation is sporadic at best, and the last few I found did not place this template on the article. It shouldn't be on the article anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Unused is not a reason. KMF (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've made some changes to it in order to align it with similar templates. It will be unused and sporadic as mediation is rather sporadic itself. Nihlus 18:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: I have pinged
the Mediation Committee for their input on this template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Template:Mediation which serves the same purpose. —Guanaco 01:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Not frequently used, since formal mediation is now mostly limited to the most complex cases which have not been resolved at lower levels of dispute resolution, but nonetheless useful for the cases which do occur. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to
((Mediation)); duplicate templates. Just make sure the parameters are made compatible, make sure the /doc page still says to use it on talk pages not article pages (when it comes to mainspace), and move it from any articles to their talk pages, if it's presently used in any. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per KATMAKROFAN, "unused" is not nor should be a reason to delete a well formed template. The good faith everyday use of "unused" for deleting templates should be stopped. If a good template is seen by an editor who would like to delete it for that reason, then use it or place it on a list (which should be created) of "Unused templates listed for placement". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 28 October 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template now superseded by a newer template Template:SCOTUS Justices listing all SCOTUS Justices; redundant implementation on Chief Justice pages. MinnesotanUser (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Primefac, good points about an important subject and template. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 28 October 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).