Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21 edit

Template:Succesful SV Dynamo sportswomen or reather sportsmen 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NPOV and not useful - who's criteria is used for determining successful? A category (Category:SV Dynamo sportspeople or similar) to group all notable athletes from this club would be much more useful.— Severo^TC 23:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's just not...right. And NPOV of course. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if just for the horrendous title. ♦Tangerines BFC *·Talk 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly more useful than those managerial-history templates that are springing up, but still delete. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I give it some credit..., it made me laugh. :) *Cremepuff 222* 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I give it some credit. Dang, at least rename it! The Hooded One 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently POV given template name and title, unsalvageable in its current state. Qwghlm 07:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - better served by a category. ArtVandelay13 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incoherent, POV, pet of an ill-mannered editor. Wiggy! 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps some kind of weird joke? Jmlk 1 7 06:53, 27 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-template1 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also including in nom: Template:Uw-template2, Template:Uw-template3, Template:Uw-template4, and Template:Uw-template4im. There is no reason to distinguish vandalism edits. Vandalism is vandalism, no matter what namespace it's in. For that, we have the uw-vandalism series. The whole point of the new warnings are to cut down on the number of them. These are superfluous. . --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Blake3522 08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom of this AfD. The Hooded One 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are some vandalism situations where a separate template is useful for highlighting a particular issue or policy, but this is pretty straightforward vandalism that is covered adequately by the regular warning.--Kubigula (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uw-vandalism templates can be used here and for any case specific problems the 2nd parser argument can be used to give greater detail. ^Khukri 07:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Khukri. Clyde (a.k.a Mystytopia) 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the nominator; though slightly useful, we probably don't need them in the long run. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really useful. Jmlk 1 7 06:54, 27 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-project1 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also including in nom: Template:Uw-project2, Template:Uw-project3, Template:Uw-project4, and Template:Uw-project4im. There is no reason to distinguish vandalism edits. Vandalism is vandalism, no matter what namespace it's in. For that, we have the uw-vandalism series. The whole point of the new warnings are to cut down on the number of them. These are superfluous. . --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Blake3522 08:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same comment to the discussion right above this one. The Hooded One 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning on the above TfD.--Kubigula (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uw-vandalism templates can be used here and for any case specific problems the 2nd parser argument can be used to give greater detail. ^Khukri 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say per nomination...but I do agree with the reasoning above. Delete it. Jmlk 1 7 06:55, 27 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Upc 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused and I can see no possible use for it - its effect is to uppercase all the text after it, by insterting the HTML <div style="text-transform: uppercase;">. It has, however, been used to vandalise articles, see [1][2] -- AJR | Talk 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vandal accessory and likely created solely for such use. More info on creator's usage of this template is found in this AfD. Resurgent insurgent 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very useful 86.143.233.233 11:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you figure that? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useful? Hey, I have to disagree! Jmlk 1 7 06:56, 27 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Amazonimages 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful either as a image source tag or as a licensing tag, since Amazon.com is not the source of these images and does not hold the copyright on them. — Resurgent insurgent 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - 52 Pickup 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would the nominator be fine with the existence of this tag as neither a source tag nor a license tag, but an information tag? Gracenotes^T § 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I really don't see the purpose of a tag that just says "This image was taken from Amazon.com. Amazon is not the source of this image and is not its copyright holder". Resurgent insurgent 00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some people need to learn how to type instead of allowing templates to do all of the work. *Cremepuff 222* 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was for an open-content image site, I'd keep it. Then and again, Amazon is not an image library. The Hooded One 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Useful template. (Ibaranoff24 04:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete — Not a useful template. A link will do just fine. --Iamunknown 04:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Misguided template leading to a deprecated Project page. What is important in non-free images is the copyright holder. - hahnch e n 11:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is useful whatsoever, and I am going to have to say that there is actually no purpose at all for this template. Jmlk 1 7 06:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Daniel 5127 03:53, 29 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LBT backlink 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. There needs to be discussion on the issues brought up in the nomination, but there seems to be a consensus that the problems don't require deletion. -Amarkov moo! 00:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded, non-standard navigation placement, potentially interferes with any page-protection or featured icons, problematic with non-monobook skins. Delete all. --Quiddity 16:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all what? -N 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the recommendation part, as opposed to "redirect all" or "mark historical", etc. --Quiddity 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not needed. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - true, not needed, but useful. We could live without them, but scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page to find the link to the parent page is inconvenient (and not obvious to new users). Having the backlink somewhere near the top (not necessarily in its present location) ties all the Lists of basic topics together nicely by leading conveniently back to the master list. And this makes their association obvious -- which may be helpful to people who are browsing. Rather than delete the backlinks, we should discuss how to solve each of the problems that have been cited, such as an alternate location near the top of the page for the backlink. The Transhumanist 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not needed. The Hooded One 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A link near the top seems useful to the article, list of basic phil. topics. The general question of such links needs some deliberation.-- Newbyguesses 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it is quite useful, as many articles do have links to it. Jmlk 1 7 06:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though there is another link at the bottom that does the same, this template helps the novice readers to navigate. After all, these "List of basic ... topics" are for the general public, aren't they? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:04, 28 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sp 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

This template is used to incorporate various spellings in a single article, e.g. "US = Standardize, UK = Standardise, AU = Standardise, mate!" While well-intended, I think this is a bad idea that makes editing less accessible to novices, and adds additional process, for very little benefit. >Radiant< 12:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is being transcluded on all those plant talk pages. {{WikiProject Plants}} doesn't seem to be using it. –Pomte 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It used to ([3]). A series of null edits will fix the whatlinkshere. This template is barely in use at all! It was briefly included in a series of heavily-used templates, but this was reverted by others. The whatlinkshere is not up-to-date and overstates actual usage by several orders of magnitude. >Radiant< 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could go through and agressively add transclusions, but that would probably be inappropriate. Surely the fact that it is (currently) barely in use is not a reason for its immediate deletion. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 23 15:55 (UTC)

That it is not in use is evidence that there is no widespread phenomena of people who have found this good and useful (i.e. there is no consensus of common practice), and that there would be little disruption in deleting it. —Centrx→talk • 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template was basically created on May 1, 2007, or, in this month. Templates must be given time to be used. Besides, you reverted all of my uses of the template, which is why there aren't any uses.

A number of people have expressed interest at the debate on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling). « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 23 17:54 (UTC)

Suggest that we accept or reject the idea of accomodating spelling via technical means once and for all, rather than having little scattered conversations. Gracenotes^T § 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly. I am unaware of any proposals for accomodating spelling via technical means, let alone any such that were consensually accepted. Such a proposal would allow for debate; this template preempts the debate through fait accompli. >Radiant< 14:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A technical solution cannot address everything. As I have mentioned on Template_talk:sp, there is a dialect of English where program is spelled "programme" when in the sense of a schedule of activities and "program" when in the sense of a computer application, etc. Also, it would be important to keep the original spelling of a cited article in order to refer to the reference more exactly.

MediaWiki could have support for a "piped heading" syntax similar to the syntax for piped links. This way, it would be possible to use {{sp}} (or something) to alter the appearance of the heading's text while keeping an appropriate canonical name for use in section linking. Something similar to ==History of colour pigments|History of {{sp/colour}} pigments==, for example, might be appropriate. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 23 15:52 (UTC)

Delete-at least for now. Its an intriguing idea, but something like this ought to go through a proposal process. That way, its possible not only to see if there's consensus to use such a thing, but get more folks working on how it might be done.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your main reason, then perhaps it would be better to leave it as is. Someone has already reverted all transclusions that I had added thus it is effectively unused. However, it can serve as the place for any discussion about its use. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 23 15:33 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by "per nom". Please explain. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 23 15:56 (UTC)

It means "according to the logic used by the nominator". Please read Wikipedia:Per for more details. Gracenotes^T § 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the benefits (if any) do not appear to justify the overhead, which includes: (1) the additional work to implement the template and (2) the further disruption of article source code with excess markup. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument seems to suggest that all templates should be deleted; the syntax for any template is definitely more confusing than plain text, so the argument can be applied to everything.

What "additional work to implement the template" are you referring to? « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 23 16:17 (UTC)

No other templates are used in in-line text; they are infoboxes separated from the prose, or singular parenthetical additions. The purpose of this template marks it for use in most sentences of every article. —Centrx→talk • 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other templates that are for in-line text including {{fact}}, {{vague}}, {{POV-statement}}, {{or}}, ... (others at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources).

On average, this template could only be used seldom. Some articles like Yoghurt and Colour would have more occurrences while many others would have none.« D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 26 05:40 (UTC)

Not all templates, only those that do not have any significant benefits. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, firstly per Christopher Parham, but also with the additional note that this will interact very badly with the minor differences in grammar (preferences for singular or plural in group references, use or absence of the definite article in certain circumstances) and also quite badly with differences in preferred vocabulary ("elevator" and "lift" are not two variant spellings of the same word). In practice, any article of non-stub length written properly in one regional variety will not be amenable to regionalizing it by mere spelling changes, so the user-visible result (say, British regionalisms mixed with automatically-generated American spellings) will be a baffling mess. Worse, changing an article with such markup will be more difficult, requiring either a knowledge of the template syntax (casual editors won't have it ), backing out the template (the most likely response of good-faith novice editors; now we've got a revert war!), or writing articles in "compromise language", attempting to write for the template's limitations (Uggh! Bad!). In short (!), it's a bad idea. Gavia immer (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novice editors with well intentions already occasionaly cause edit wars when they correct "obvious" misspellings.

You are right in that {{sp}} should only be used for localizing spellings, but the template will work for virtually all localization tasks. Perhaps a more suitable name for this template is in order. This template would basically be the same code and {{sp}} can just call the new template. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 23 16:14 (UTC)

The problem is using a template at all. —Centrx→talk • 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This template used to be for a totally different use before 2 May: former version. Resurgent insurgent 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. That version is similar to Template:Subpage, which was deleted per discussion here. >Radiant< 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ability to localize articles would greatly improve the readability of the encyclopedia and the apparent professionalism of its writings. The supplied arguments against dialect localization are based on supposition, the validity of which remains to be seen after a sufficient trial period.

The idea is to finally fix or make better the long-standing controversy over "correct" spelling and other localization issues. It is definitely worth giving this a try as the current, ad hoc guidelines lead to problems, including edit wars and constantly recurring suggestions regarding title renaming, which are potentially avoidable. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 26 05:23 (UTC)

Keep at least until it has been tested and discussed to a greater extent. Any potential solution to edit wars such as Talk:Yoghurt should not be deleted prematurely. Antonrojo 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, however, not a solution to Yoghurt. Obviously the spelling in the article should match that of the header; there remains controversy and dispute regardless of this template. >Radiant< 12:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems to not really have any concise reason to delete, but I think this should be kept around until something else can be figured out with it. Seems the reasons for deletion are a bit more involved than meets the eye. Could potentially be useful in some instances as well. Jmlk 1 7 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is something the English Wikipedia can learn from the Chinese, Serbian, Kazakh, and the Uyghur Wikipedia. On the Chinese Wikipedia, you'll find a drop down menu on the top, in black font. What it does is to convert between traditional Chinese characters and simplified Chinese character. Even though there is a close-to-one-to-one mapping on characters, there are things the computer can't do. For example, "New Zealand" has two different translation in the Chinese world. Users of traditional characters tend to say 紐西蘭, where the first character wikt:紐 is a phonetic translation, pronounced as niu. Users of simplified characters tend to say 新西兰, where the first character wikt:新 is a semantic translation, which means "new". With the help of zh:Template:NoteTA, even the title can be converted with editor-overridden setting. The same template is also capable of customizing conversion of a certain keywords (e.g. Wellington 惠灵顿 v.s. 威靈頓) within the article.

What does this mean to the English Wikipedia? If implemented correctly, we can have a tab on the top just like 4 other Wikipedias I mentioned above, and the user doesn't even have to log in to use the feature. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that if it is appropriate it should be implemented in the software, not by using a hackish template with collateral damage. Also, presumably there is some difficulty for some in understanding an unfamiliar script (?) whereas in English the British and American spellings are perfectly and easily mutually intelligible. That is, there is an actual necessity in using both scripts unless a duplicate traditional script Wikipedia is to be created; here there is no such thing. —Centrx→talk • 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom rationale. Added complexity in the wikicode should be avoided whenever possible. Plus, I enjoy the idea that we're forcing knowledge and positive attitudes on people – etymology, tolerance, diplomacy, diversity – all good things... Our current guidelines are a good solution, in my opinion. --Quiddity 06:11, 30 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Libya Squad 2006 African Nations Cup 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The World Cup templates are one thing, but this is excessive. This appears to be the only one, too - not even the champions (Egypt) have a corresponding template. fuzzy510 08:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a problem with it. Perhaps we should create the Egyptians, rather than delete this.--Thomas.macmillan 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)* Keep as per Thomas.macmillan - 52 Pickup 15:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete. I was unaware a consensus already existed on the topic. Delete--Thomas.macmillan 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you realize the precedent this sets, right? If this gets kept, then it's legitimate to have a template for every team for every Association's championship, which would further exacerbate the problem that a lot of people thought we had with the World Cup templates. --fuzzy510 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought that this was already the case. Fair enough. Delete - 52 Pickup 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consensus is to only have current club, and World Cup rosters. This is neither. Neier 07:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Severo^TC 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (a bit later, forgot to sign)[reply]
Delete per consensus mentioned above. Roster is neither that meet notability requirements. Jmlk 1 7 07:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per earlier concensus. Jogurney 14:36, 27 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Al Ittihad Tripoli Current Squad 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a list that's not used anywhere. May have been created in error. — fuzzy510 08:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - 52 Pickup 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Phoenix2. *Cremepuff 222* 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use it, or lose it. The Hooded One 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reformatted, and transcluded on other articles. Neier 13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not used, looks unwieldy, and is probably just languishing on the site. Jmlk 1 7 07:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is used on at least 20 articles (every player in the squad) and serves the same purposes as every other template of this kind. The only difference is the formatting looks poor, and I'd be happy to clean it up (but won't if it's going to get deleted). Delete - It has indeed been replaced as ChoChoPK noticed below. Jogurney 14:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be replaced by {{Al Ittihad (Tripoli) Current Squad}} --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:56, 28 May 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.