Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13

edit

Template:Space Ghost Coast to Coast

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. Zorak and Brak were both redirected Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:38, 13 May 2022 (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).

Hebrew Bible campaignboxes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 merge to Template:The Bible and warfare removing "all the obscuring factors" Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both All three templates fail WP:TG on multiple points. The function and especially the scope of the templates are not clearly documented, and therefore it is also unclear what the titles and contents should be. The edit history shows that editors also have no clear idea what these templates are about.

The first template - created by now-blocked User:Scarfaced Charley in 2011 - was originally named 'Early Israelite Campaigns', then renamed 'Battles in the biblical narrative of the conquest of Canaan' because 'more accurate', but then reverted back to 'Early Israelite Campaigns'. The article Early Israelite Campaigns was merged into Book of Joshua in 2017, so that led me to rename the template to 'Book of Joshua battles' with the reason 'As the historicity of these battles is questioned, it's best to focus on them as literary narratives from the Book of Joshua.' Someone else, @Benjitheijneb: had, however, added Battle of Gibeah (which redirects to Levite's concubine), a narrative in the Book of Judges 19–21, not Joshua. They themselves indicated some uncertainty over whether this battle fit the template by saying 'added Gibeah - unclear whether this should be in early or later Israelite campaigns'.

Similar issues emerged in the second template (originally created in 2013 by User:אשכנזישעיידן, who apparently became inactive in 2014). The fact that the title of the template is the vague 'Campaigns of the Israelites', the display name is 'Campaigns of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah', and that this text links to the (really, really generic) article 'Jewish history' rather than a specific war, also shows no clear focus, scope or function. The same user Benjitheijneb was unsure whether Battle of Bitter Lakes was 'relevant' to the template (and also added some other ancient Israelite wars that are not mentioned in the Bible, but are in extrabiblical sources). @PatGallacher: removed it again saying 'not clear Bitter Lakes did involve Israel or Judah', but @AncientEgypt23: reverted this again, before @Greyshark09: removed it again. I made a final attempt at periodisation a few hours ago, but then concluded this is a mess that I can't make sense of.

(Addition 5 May) The third template - also created by now-blocked User:Scarfaced Charley in 2011 - has similar issues. The only criterion on which Scarfaced Charley appears to have based the distinctions 'early' and 'later' is whether they are mentioned in the Book of Joshua (early) or the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (later). The problem is that there isn't a neat chronological distinction in the contents of these books; e.g. Judges 1 contains material also covered in Joshua 2 to 19 about the conquest of Canaan; Joshua just provides way more details about what should be the same time period. Once again this template fails WP:TG by not having a clear scope and function.

Are these campaignboxes lists of Hebrew Bible battles? Historical ancient Israelite/Judahite battles? Should they include fictional battles or only non-fictional ones? Battles involving Israelites only mentioned in extrabiblical sources? Both? We can't ask the creators anymore, because neither is active on Wikipedia anymore, so we have to figure this out ourselves. Besides, these aren't interlinked battles of well-defined "campaigns"; when I found them, both all three templates featured a rather random mix of historical, semi-historical and non-historical battles not arranged in any proper way (alphabetical, chronological, biblical canon-wise, etc.). Campaignboxes should really only be used for battles that are part of the same war, or a very closely linked set of wars (e.g. Template:Campaignbox French Wars of Religion; these wars are interrupted by short periods of peace, but clearly closely related within a timespan of 4 decades). The battles/wars in these campaignboxes are not clearly related, nor are they covering a limited timespan; the difference between the estimated dates of the oldest and most recent battles are about 500 years. These templates have just become dumping grounds for anything related to battles narrated in the Hebrew Bible and extrabiblical sources involving the ancient Israelites/Judahites, whether they are historical or not. That's not what campaignboxes are for. I've tried to make some improvements, but I now think they cannot be salvaged.

Whatever legitimate and useful function they may or could have had is much better carried out by Warfare in the Hebrew Bible (which was recently created by @BD2412:, and is set up to be broad enough to discuss any military actions mentioned in the Hebrew Bible or reflections on past or future wars, with ample space to discuss historicity), and the existing Category:Hebrew Bible battles (which in my view should focus on literary aspects of biblical texts about war) and Category:Wars of ancient Israel (which should in my view be exclusively about actual military history and not include any battles which scholars agree (probably) never happened). If these purposes of these two categories were not clear yet, then I propose that we agree on them right here, and right now, before more confusion can arise in the future. In any case, virtually every Wikipedia article that mentions the conquest of Canaan and other aspects of the Book of Joshua pretty much already says that the accounts are probably mostly if not entirely un-historical. I'm not sure if there is a rule for this yet (this may be a better question for WP:MILHIST), but I thought that English Wikipedia had a rule of not creating campaignboxes about wars that never happened, to maintain a clear distinction between history and literary fiction. (If there is none, then maybe we should introduce it). (Addition 5 May) I now remember: material related to the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history has a strict policy of separating fact from fiction; the 14th-century novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms (ROTK) is considered historical fiction and not a reliable source for the end of the Han dynasty and military history of the Three Kingdoms. The Template:Three Kingdoms editnotice warns editors about this in many articles. Therefore, Template:Campaignbox End of Han and Template:Campaignbox Three Kingdoms may not feature fictonal battles such as the Battle of Hulao Pass that is based on the ROTK. In any case, I think we better delete these templates because they create more issues than they solve. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge together into one - Having a single one of these would serve a significant use as a navigational aid, whether it's called a "campaignbox" or just a navbox. I think this would solve the issue of unclear scope of the smaller ones, which is problematic. There's a difference between this and the Three Kingdoms because stuff such as Hulao Pass can be clearly excluded. If we make it clear that the scope for the template is appearances in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, that should solve that issue. A template grouping these would serve a legitimate navigational aid for readers, and we shouldn't be putting editor beliefs about biblical inerrancy/errancy before reader aids. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not sure of the extent of this proposal and can't support or oppose it as a whole - are you proposing deleting the templates alone, or subsuming all the articles to Warfare in the Hebrew Bible? There are, as you've rightly pointed out, several events under several campaignboxes for which I am unsure of how the periodisation of the campaign box is delineated (i.e. whether a particular box should include pre-monarchic, united kingdom or two-kingdom eras), and having either a clearly-defined timeframe for each or merging all templates together would be much clearer. For the notion of merging templates into one as User:Hog Farm above supports, I can express support since it removes all the obscuring factors - the internal breakdown by period in Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of the Israelites would be particularly pertinent.
    I also do have to note that the Bible, and particularly books covering later chronological periods, can and are used as semi-historical sources with collateral regional histories and archaeology where possible. The analogy with the Three Kingdoms era (also a period I edit within) is insufficient: there already exists the historical documents of the 3rd century Records of the Three Kingdoms and other historical sources to easily identify the entirely-fictional occurrences in the 14th century Romance of the Three Kingdoms, while no such reliable historical equivalent exists for the Bible. Even those events described under fantastical circumstances in the Bible can still be identified as propagandised accounts of historical battles, archaeology and collateral histories depending. While some articles might be reviewed for notability and potentially merged into the pages for the biblical book that describes them, they could not all be adequately merged into the Warfare in the Hebrew Bible - and for that matter, I fimly believe they shouldn't be anyway, since warfare as an article title on Wikipedia usually indicates a description of the manners, organisation and culture of waging war rather than a list of military engagements as wars of articles are (see Ancient warfare, Anglo-Saxon warfare, Early Germanic warfare et al.). In this regard, which already seems beyond the scope of debating the campaignboxes alone, I would have to oppose. Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal I appreciate both of your comments. It is true that the analogy with the Three Kingdoms period does not always work, because the distinction between historical and non-historical sources and events cannot be so easily made when it comes to the Hebrew Bible. The discussion Hog Farm and I are having at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#May campaignboxes include fictional battles? has also resulted in a workable solution: replacing all these three campaignboxes with a navbox at the bottom, called Template:The Bible and warfare (Hog Farm's good suggestion), analogous to Template:The Bible and history. It retains the navigation function, it doesn't necessarily imply that these were historical battles (as we should expect from battles included in campaignboxes), and we can separate them from ancient Israelite battles not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but that are mentioned in other sources. Important point: I found out that Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar II actually also includes 3 of the most recent Hebrew Bible battles that probably really happened. I've got no objections against this template, because it is concise enough in scope and function, time period, theme, and includes battles that are probably historical. This is a good example of how campaignboxes should work. But to group all Hebrew Bible battles together, that navbox "Template:The Bible and warfare" is probably a better idea.
The scope of the Warfare in the Hebrew Bible article is a bit of a different issue, but an important one. I'd like to invite Benjitheijneb to come to Talk:Warfare in the Hebrew Bible to discuss what the best way of shaping that article is, and what the best title would be etc. I'm open to a lot of ideas, and the creator BD2412 is as well, we're still at an early stage, so useful imput would be much appreciated over there. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2022 (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).
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused link template that no longer works as the message you see is "Company not found". No use for this anymore. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2022 (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:Ghost Box Records

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 13:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A total of three articles are linked here: the label and its two founders. Each of those already link to and from one another. Inclusion of its discography is also adequately wiki-linked on the label's article and there doesn't need to be a navbox for that. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:50, 13 May 2022 (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:ElsaFan2008

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2022 (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:ElementForProtons

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. Created in 2008. Does not appear to be useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2022 (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:Einsiedler Ward Functional Analysis, Spectral Theory, and Applications

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions in article space. Only one transclusion overall. Created in 2020, but does not appear to be useful. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2022 (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:Edit milestone

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded in only one user page in a custom table. No other incoming links. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2022 (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:Ed-nt

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded in only one User draft page that has not been edited since 2006. Not useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2022 (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:Economy of the Central African Republic

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. {{Central African Republic topics}} does the job better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2022 (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:Economy of Liberia

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions in articles. {{Liberia topics}} does the job much better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you could greatly expand the templates with more economy related articles than the general templates, right Fsmatovu and Aymatth2 . Same with Template:Economy of the Central African Republic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template has existed in its current form for 14 years. I'm fine to see it userfied until it is expanded and useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2022 (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:10TeamBracket-NCAA4-divisions

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{10TeamBracket | legs = 1/3/1 | RD2-RD3-path = 0}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2022 (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:10TeamBracket-NCAA4

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{10TeamBracket | RD1-RD2-path = 0 | RD2-RD3-path = 0 | legs = 1/3/1}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (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:10TeamBracket-NCAA2

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{10TeamBracket | RD1-RD2-path = 0 | RD2-RD3-path = 0 | legs = 1/3/1}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2022 (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:9TeamBracket-SingleElim

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{9TeamBracket}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (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:9TeamBracket-NCAA-with 3rd

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{9TeamBracket | RD2-RD3-path = 0}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2022 (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:8TeamBracket-NCAA5

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{8TeamBracket | RD1-RD2-path = 0 | legs = 2 | aggregate = y}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2022 (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:S-line/TER Occitanie left/

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/TER Occitanie. Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2022 (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:PM color

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Paris Métro. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2022 (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:8TeamBracket-NCAA4-with 3rd

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by{{8TeamBracket | RD1-RD2-path = 0 | legs = 2/1 | aggregate = y}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2022 (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:8TeamBracket-NCAA2-with 3rd

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{8TeamBracket | RD1-RD2-path = 0}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2022 (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:8TeamBracket-NCAA2

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{8TeamBracket | RD1-RD2-path = 0}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2022 (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:8TeamBracket-Best of Five Only QF

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{8TeamBracket | legs = 5 | maxround = 1}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2022 (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:6TeamBracket-with 3rd

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 02:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{6TeamBracket}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (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:6TeamBracket-SPHL2

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{6TeamBracket | legs = 1/3}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2022 (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:6TeamBracket-NCAA9

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{6TeamBracket | legs = 1/3/1}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2022 (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/2022_May_13&oldid=1089239996"