Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11

[edit]

Template:Campaignbox Apocryphal Roman Wars

[edit]
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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the template's entries are not even links. Of the three that are links, two are for ruined Latin cities, not military conflicts. This just leaves Rape of the Sabine Women. Not worth a whole template.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with nom. In this setting, links are better addressed within the primary article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful, IMO, and problematic in many ways, most of which aren't easily curable:
  • The campaignbox is supposed to be about "wars", but "the Rape of the Sabine Women" wasn't a war, or even a battle in a war; the next three items in the list are all towns that Romulus is said to have defeated after that event. All three were connected, as was Cures, not listed—but they're not the names of wars, and really all seem to represent different phases of the same conflict. In fact none of the items listed is the name of a "war", except to the extent that someone today is assigning names to events that aren't known to have had distinct names in antiquity.
  • All of the items refer to events traditionally occurring under the Roman kings, but the list is far from complete; Livy and Dionysius mention a number of other cities and towns defeated by the kings, which for whatever reason are not included. Our knowledge of the events of this period is too limited to distinguish between events that probably occurred as related and those that may not have; it's not clear on what basis items were included on this list.
  • The items that are or were formerly linked are all described in the articles about the towns concerned or the kings who supposedly conquered them; there are no separate articles for the "wars" in question, and there are unlikely ever to be separate articles for most of them, because each of them can be summed up in one or two lines, and all of the information known about them is already contained in other articles.
  • The use of the word "apocryphal" seems intended to suggest that these events did not occur, which violates NPOV. Our only information about them comes from ancient writings dating from long after the conflicts were believed to have occurred, and some modern historians are inclined to dismiss nearly the entire narrative of the Roman kingdom; but the towns mentioned seem to have existed, and neither the archaeological record nor historiography can prove or disprove the occurrence of conflicts with Rome during this early period. P Aculeius (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2020 (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:Ponteland and Darras Hall Branch

[edit]
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) 16:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no incoming links or transclusions. Infoboxes generally belong in articles, and Ponteland and Darras Hall Branch has an infobox that looks like it is working fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CrazyBoy826 21:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The reason this template is unused is because the nominator removed and replaced it from the article: see Special:Diff/958677859. Relisting for further discussion in light of this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (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:Cannabis and Judaism

[edit]
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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not necessary Hillelfrei talk 15:57, 11 June 2020 (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:UsernamePolicy

[edit]
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 2020 June 19. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2020 (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:Renaissance music manuscript English sources

[edit]
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 2020 June 19. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2020 (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:Timed block

[edit]
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 2020 June 22. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_11&oldid=963829033"