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) 15:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rollbacker-Note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rollback is an extremely low-level user right, providing no special authority on anything, so I don’t see why we would need this and it isn’t used in any meaningful way anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rollback does not give a user any special status; this distinction is about as meaningful as a ((Twinkle user note)) template. Mz7 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: I don't personally care either way it goes. The main place I see this used is at Requests for rollback where other editors who have rollback leave notes or comments about potential rollbacker's that have applied for the right. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, it simply doesn't matter whether commentators there are rollbackers or not; the opinions/arguments weigh the same regardless. If anything, the one relevant distinction is whether someone is an administrator, since only admins can change user rights, and ((adminnote)) is almost never used at WP:PERM. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Especially after reading some of the other points. Delete per nom as well as previous and subsequent comments. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need, only serves to propagate a sense of hierarchy and hatcollecting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Didn't even know this existed until I saw it everywhere on the rollback perm request board. I can't even think of a good reason for this to exist. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 03:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah well. I see that the message I was trying to convey with this template was misinterpreted by the voters, and seemingly also by the users. It was meant to be used as the person who reverted a vandal's chang, not the user right itself. Something like ((Rollbacker-Note)) This person seems a bit like a sock. But oh well. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you can see how there's a seriously high ratio for potential misuse over a marginally useful distinction. In many cases, it simply doesn't really matter to clarify this, and in any case, saying "I was the user who reverted you" is more clear and direct than "Rollbacker note:". Mz7 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don’t doubt it was created in good faith, but on the rare occasions it is used, it is being used in an inapropriate manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DatGuy. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 13:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Mz7. I didn't even know it existed until I used it for the first time yesterday. No real need to have it. Hummerrocket (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Amorymeltzer —usernamekiran(talk) 14:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Beeblebrox and Mz7. Because of low-level user right, there is no need to take opinions by Rollbacker. Only admins can change user rights, so why we leave note on the WP:PERM. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Mz7. Vermont (talk) 10:18, 4 June 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 June 7. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Tone_superscript (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Extended periodic table (by Fricke, 52 columns, periods 8–9) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Extended periodic table (by Pyykkö, 33 columns, superactinides in period 8) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I decided to do a group nomination for these because they are unused and the period 8 elements haven’t been discovered yet. Two similar nominations are listed below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical note: the two "similar nominations" that are mentioned in the proposal are

((Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, period 8))) currently relisted at May 29, 2018

((Extended_periodic_table_(by_Aufbau,_50_columns,_compact))) currently relisted at May 29, 2018

So together, today four extended periodic table templates are discussed at TfD. - DePiep (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (waiting for expert opinion). Per the Double sharp arguments in the other two templates ("Forseeable for illustrating the history ... Seaborg ..."), this template may be added to enwiki in a short time. The nom's notion "no use because these elements are not discovered" is incorrect: this part of the periodic table is theorised heavily, for example how & where the (as yet non-existant) g-block would appear. IOW, the theorised PT extension has a use.

I'd like to hear from User:Double sharp on whether which of these four templates should survive, and if any inclusion in an article is to be expected shortly. - DePiep (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I missed these two earlier; they are useful for the same reason, to illustrate the different speculations by different reliable sources. (In this particular case it is good that only periods 8 and 9 are included, as everyone treats the first few periods the same way; but I would keep periods 1 through 7 for Seaborg's one, because it was the pioneering one.) Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. By now, the first template (by Fricke) is used in an article (Extended periodic table). - DePiep (talk) 06:26, 7 June 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) 15:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Virginia Cavalry FC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox for a minor league soccer team that never played a single game. Once the fluff, bloat, and inappropriate section links were removed, it's clear there's nothing to this navbox. Three articles are linked, one for the team, one for the stadium (which was also never built), and one for the retired player who would have been the director. Notably, the latter has one passing mention of the team. Also of note is that the minor league baseball team intended as the stadium's primary tenant doesn't have a navbox either. (The navbox was once bloated by an editor who that to a bunch of soccer team navboxes around the same time despite multiple other editors telling him to stop because of a lack of consensus; all the others have been reverted.) oknazevad (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - simply not needed, insufficient blue links to merit. GiantSnowman 10:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This never-was team does not need a navbox. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 30 May 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).