Discovery Wiki:Page Deletion

• All pages nominated for deletion need a section on this page marked with a timestamp to indicate the date of nomination. A timestamp can be produced by signing the entry with four tildes ( ~~~~ )
• Pages that are nominated for deletion will be given a grace period of some time to discuss the proposition in full. If no valid arguments against the deletion of the page are given, a moderator will remove the page from the wiki at that point. Note that a deleted page can be recreated following its deletion.
• Archive 1 (2008-05-14 - 2009-07-23)

See also: Category:Pages up for deletion

Template:Allies

This template is not a template and has been made obsolete by Template:Faction Diplomacy. This "template" is in use on most faction pages, but since that's simply transcribed wiki markup this page is useless. We will need to replace usage occurances of this "template" with Template:Faction Diplomacy

-- Eyvind (talk • contrib) 04:40, 24 February 2009 (MST)

I wouldn't say it's obsolete by Template:Faction Diplomacy, as the new template is far too large to be properly used for every NPC faction in my opinion (iirc it was intended for player factions anyways). I would not replace the old one with this one - the old one is doing a fine job and I don't think it would look good if we had full rep sheets on every page that make up 80% of it's content. Template:Faction Diplomacy is nice, but I think it should one be used on player faction pages.:: Nathrael :: ^{Talklink Datalink Commlink}

Let me repeat myself, it is not a template. The wiki markup has just been copied to the different pages. Therefore it makes no practical difference if we delete the template. Also, I agree with you that Template:Faction Diplomacy has a tendency to become too large. But to be fair, so does Template:Allies if used in the same way. It is a problem with both solutions. To fix this problem, I have proposed a way of using Template:Faction Diplomacy in a better way on Template talk:Faction Diplomacy. As far as design goes, Template:Faction Diplomacy has more potential to be a universal diplomacy template, so for the sake of consistency I highly recommend that we focus on improving it rather than using multiple separate templates. -- Eyvind (talk • contrib) 09:40, 28 February 2009 (MST)

I originally intended this to do the things that the Template:Faction Diplomacy does. This was created before the parser functions were installed on the wiki. It was going to work inside another template, in a psuedo-collapsible allies list. The new one does the job fine. The only thing I would mention is that the New one does not need to list all factions. It will depend on the faction that the New one is used on. I support this being deleted. Chovynz 22:01, 13 June 2009 (MDT)

Category:Kirche die Grunnen Alders followers

Not only horribly misspelled (it should be "Kirche des Grünen Adlers") but also, in my opinion, not really necessary; I think for now, until the Wiki grows, a "People" category is more than enough. Nathrael 03:12, 17 March 2009 (MDT)

I don't see a problem with having more categories, even if they are a bit under-used. In my opinion, this category should be placed under Category:People and the name fixed, but not deleted. On the same note, various other people related categories (Category:Faction Leaders and Other Notable Player Characters, and several more, see Special:Categories) should be made subcategories of Category:People -- Eyvind (talk • contrib) 10:07, 21 April 2009 (MDT)

Table:Very Heavy Fighters (DELETED)

Unnecessary prefix used, moved to main namespace. --Tsaryu^Talk 16:31, 22 June 2009 (MDT)

This table originally acted as a type of template so it could be sisplayed on multiple pages and only have to be updated on one. One of the other display locations had recently been reverted for some reason. I have corrected this issue. If you know of a better way to accomplish this I am open to suggestions. Tazuras 17:51, 22 June 2009 (MDT)

I'm also interested to see if this works. I'd like for this to be kept for awhile to see how it goes. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 05:56, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Admiral_(Kriegsmarine)

I have no idea if this is useful or not. Praetyre did it. Seems more like a dictionary than anything useful for a wiki.It seems TOO in-universe/RP. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 07:42, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

I think it's fine, although it shouldn't be a separate page. Maybe merge it into the Rheinland Military page under a Ranks subsection, or create a Ranks of the Rheinland Military page. ~Nathrael ^{Talklink Datalink Commlink}

Großadmiral

I have no idea if this is useful or not. Praetyre did it. Seems more like a dictionary than anything useful for a wiki.It seems TOO in-universe/RP. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 07:42, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Generalfeldmarshall

I have no idea if this is useful or not. Praetyre did it. Seems more like a dictionary than anything useful for a wiki.It seems TOO in-universe/RP. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 07:42, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Oberkommando der Nordkriegsmarine

I have no idea if this is useful or not. Praetyre did it. Seems more like a dictionary than anything useful for a wiki.It seems TOO in-universe/RP. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 07:42, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Oberkommando der Nordrheinheer

I have no idea if this is useful or not. Praetyre did it. Seems more like a dictionary than anything useful for a wiki.It seems TOO in-universe/RP. ~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 07:42, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

RWK Krieg

As most of the above. This isn't useful (Kane isn't even around anymore, and if he was this would still need complete and total reformatting...) and doesn't contribute to anything. Oh, and as a member of the RM the above four pages (various ranks Praetyre made up) are years out of date and were never really used in the first place. Delete them. --Sovereign 22:18, 31 October 2009 (MDT)

Bay 3, Freeport 15

Blank -- Eyvind (Talk) 04:40, 28 January 2010 (MST)

Bay 3, Freeport 9

Blank. --Eyvind (Talk) 04:41, 28 January 2010 (MST)

Jefferson Richmond

Practically blank. Does not seem to have any use or useful information. --Eyvind (Talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (MST)

Category:Years

We will be using pages for each century rather than pages for each year, and a centuries category to accompany it. -- Eyvind (Talk) 23:36, 30 January 2010 (MST)

51 AS

We will be using pages for each century rather than pages for each year. -- Eyvind (Talk) 23:36, 30 January 2010 (MST)