Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16 edit

Template:Mister International 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) feminist 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational template with all but two entries deleted. Little useful navigation left between the pageant's main article and the 2016 edition. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (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:Current APEC finance ministers 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. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRUFT as in linked discussion.
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:ASEAN Foreign Ministers 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (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:ASEAN Defence Ministers 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (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:ASEAN Finance Ministers 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (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:Navbar-navframe 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 redirect (non-admin closure) feminist 09:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only 17 pages. Replace with {{navbar-collapsible}} in a table header row or {{collapse top}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect This template was created to correctly center vde links in NavFrames as collapsable tables (and {{Navbar-collapsible}}) used different sizes for the show/hide buttons. I believe this was corrected some time ago. — Dispenser 21:37, 17 January 2017 (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:UTSA Roadrunners football coach navbox 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) feminist 10:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EXISTING... the category is a better fit than a navbox. When the program adds at least 2 more coaches, then this navbox can be WP:REFUNDed. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the head coaches article page is already included in {{UTSA Roadrunners football navbox}}. I deleted the template for this and the reason justified above over six years ago. I'm surprised it still has a life. Fortguy (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2017 (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:RSWMX 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 2017 January 25 Primefac (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2017 (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:Unreferenced 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 Revert {{Unreferenced section}} to previous version. That version was effectively a redirect to {{Unreferenced}}. Note that this change will have no effect on users of either of these two templates. The change is purely a technical one, and done with the permission of the user (SMcCandlish) who made the change to separate template definitions in the first place. Most of the "oppose" votes below assume that the plan is to do away with {{Unreferenced section}} altogether, or even force one template to cover both cases with identical wording, which was never the case. Obviously this is a premature close, and I did !vote below, but I think given the impact of the TfD notice on this widely transcluded template, and also the fact that most contributors are opposing based on a misunderstanding, it's fair to close this now. If anyone has strong objections to my closing in this way, please let me know and I can reconsider. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Unreferenced and Template:Unreferenced section with Template:Unreferenced.
Use one template for unreferenced articles, sections, lists, etc. We can simply add a parameter to a template that basically does the same thing, see this this discussion. In fact, if you look here, there are quite a bit of specific and trivial templates that do the same thing only for sections, such as "Unreferenced-medical section", which is only linked on two articles, and they're put in the same maintenance categories (Category:Articles needing additional references). Also, there's a parameter for saying if it's a list even though the template is for sections, for example one can put that "this list has no sources" even though it uses a template intended for sections. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eric0928: Um, there's a duplicate nomination in here... Pppery 18:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had through that {{Unreferenced section}} was already the equivalent of {{Unreferenced|section}} (e.g., convenient for people who are less familiar with template syntax. I would support a merge that simplifies these two on the back end, but not one that makes {{Unreferenced section}} redirect to {{Unreferenced}}. Editors will be unhappy if they type {{Unreferenced section}} and end up with the whole-article language instead of the section language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More pointless tinkering for the sake of tinkering. The two current templaces do the job, and do it adequately. Leave well enough alone. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with WhatamIdoing (and to a lesser extent with Vicedomino) -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Vicedomino. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per WhatamIdoing and his reasoning. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree/Oppose merge as per others above. The "section" functionality has long proven its worth in this template and others, if you are suggesting it be eliminated. I should also note that AWB currently "corrects" {{Unreferenced|section}} to {{Unreferenced section}} and there may be a bot that does the same.— TAnthonyTalk 22:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SMcCandlish; if the functionality remains as it is now and {{Unreferenced section}} remains an active redirect, I don't see an issue.— TAnthonyTalk 16:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons already stated by WhatamIdoing. Two of your three templates are identical, and the third is already the implemented via the other one on the back end. – voidxor 23:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would prefer one template that takes parameters, instead of two templates that are manually kept in sync in case of updates. Keep Wikipedia DRY! zazpot (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any action that does not leave a section-specific unreferenced tag, or that otherwise confuses its use or interpretation by laypersons reading the articles in which such tags appear. User:Leprof_7272 [I will return and replace the IP signature when I can again log in.] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a mixed feeling. If the two are to be merged, then another parameter should be added to tell whether the message is for a section or an article. Is it possible to do if statement on a template message, or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeKayak (talk • contribs) 03:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if all it does is expand to {{unreferenced|section}}, {{unreferenced section}} is an easier way for inexperienced editors to get this result. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but only if {{unreferenced section}} continues to work as it does today. That said, it would be nifty to be able to type {{unreferenced|list}} or {{unreferenced|section}} and have the template display the right thing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vicedomino. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, these are duplicate templates than can and should be merged. We can save users and bots the effort in replacing the template for sections.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "effort" is there in deleting a bit of code? Especially if it's a bot that does it. This is a false argument. --Vicedomino (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm in complete agreement with Jonesey95. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 08:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Agree with WhatamIdoing and David Eppstein because these two templates are for entirely different uses and much easier for inexperiences editors than {{unreferenced|section}} (even after 10 years I don't use that one). Several articles do have references but have sections, sometimes quite extensive ones, that are unreferenced and those sections should to be tagged appropriately. Using {{Unreferenced}} for such instances in incorrect and because such articles do have some references that tag may get removed without ever resolving the section references at all, so the problems remains. Having and keeping {{unreferenced section}} targets the specific problem the other one can never focus on properly. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: section unreferenced can be more helpful to editors as it points out exactly where the article is lacking, whereas the overall template can be used if the article is seriously lacking. DrStrauss talk 10:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: completely unnecessary to merge, confusing to new editors, and doesn't really reduce maintenance overhead. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     11:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Support conditionally per Jonesey95. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     06:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The two templates are basically the same and the section template can easily be adjusted to a transclusion of the main template so current usage still works. Combining the two will simplify template maintenance. Slambo (Speak) 13:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no idea that "template maintenance" of these two templates was such a burden! Do I smell another false argument?? --Vicedomino (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There may not be many changes that take place to these templates in particular, but generally speaking if someone does make a change to one and is unaware of (or simply forgets about) the other, then there is a period when the two will be out of sync. Why risk it when you can guarantee that it won't happen? —howcheng {chat} 00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree with Jonesey95. Tom29739 [talk] 14:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It is extremely handy and expedient to be able to type {{urs}} or {{nr}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As those are simply redirects, that's not really a consideration. —howcheng {chat} 00:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - the two templates are geared towards two slightly different, but still distinct issues. These templates should be kept separate to avoid any confusion. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close per above. These templates have been around forever, and serve different functions. Forcing users to access one through a parameter is not necessary, and neither is the "overhead" of maintaining two templates particularly onerous. Furthermore, the starting of this TfD discussion has caused an ugly message to appear in over 200,000 articles (which I've changed to a tiny message, to make it less disruptive)... I suggest this close as early as practical once consensus is clear, so that message is gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing !vote to Support. It appears that, like others, I was guilty of not understanding the nature of the request. The "unreferenced section" will remain as a redirect, and the effect on users will be zero. It will just be much easier for template editors to maintain. As before, please can this be closed ASAP.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes no sense to me to use the inline tfd notice on non-inline templates. Pppery 22:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you saying you prefer the big one with a horizontal line across the bottom? My main thought on this is that most readers of the 200,000 articles where this teamplate is transcluded are unlikely to be interested in a TfD notice, and it impacts those articles by putting an ugly horizontal line across the top. We deliberately protect templates of this nature, since editors interfering with them can disrupt thousands of articles, yet anyone is free to nominate them here, whcih similarly disrupts the same articles. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. If I had wanted a smaller notice, I would have requested one when I made my edit requests on the template talk page. My logic is that there is space (since the tiny notice takes up a whole line anyway), and, as I said earlier, the inline varieties of tfd notice are for inline templates that are often used many times in the same article and it is illogical to use them for non-inline ones. Pppery 23:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: And with a trout for disruption of 200,000 articles. Did anyone take this to talk for the templates or even propose an RfC? The "unreferenced section" template is needed and is distinct. Let's not make templates so complex with optional parameters that no one can use them. Montanabw(talk) 22:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an easy compromise: Make {{unreferenced section}} call {{unreferenced|section}} so that editors can still use it directly and now you have choice of which way you want to do it, but they both have the same result. I've never understood why we have two different templates for the exact same purpose. As any software developer will tell you, having duplicate code is a pain in the ass to maintain. —howcheng {chat} 00:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion on this request. Nobody has said that {{unreferenced section}} will disappear. Apparently for years, {{unreferenced section}} was simply a wrapper to {{unreferenced|section}} but it was changed by SMcCandlish to have separate code. I assume there was a specific reason why this was done. If this proposal passes, usage of the two templates will remain exactly as it is now. The difference will be that instead of the small left-aligned box, you'll get the big centered one (which happens to be my preference). Does anyone have a reason to oppose that's not related to usability? —howcheng {chat} 00:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it appears to me that this is a proposal to merge both templates into {{unreferenced}}.— TAnthonyTalk 00:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, merging the code from {{unreferenced section}} to {{unreferenced}} (at least that's how I understand it). —howcheng {chat} 00:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that Eric0928 wants to combine them and "use one template" (with parameters) for all scenarios.— TAnthonyTalk 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The smaller appearance is an option, not a default, and would remain an option after the merge. However the |small=y should't do anything if doesn't also have the section parameter on; when used at top of page, this kind of template is always full-size.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, and most of the above oppose comments are clearly confused. Both template names would remain, the parameters would all still work, and the behavior would not change, just the codebase would not be split. I have no recollection about the split, but obviously we like such things combined.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: as noted a couple of times above, it was you who split the templates out in the first place... please could you explain why you did so, and why you are now happy for them to be remerged? Just so we understand the logic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just said, I have no recollection, and do not presently think they should be split.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if merged, it should use |section=y to automatically use |small=y and |1=section instead of optionally using it. The visual distinction should be default. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, section unreferenced is useful as a pinpoint for newbies. Entirely unnecessary. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 05:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like everyone essentially wants the same thing - the ability for users to type either {{unreferenced section}} or {{unreferenced|section}} and for exactly the same thing to happen. What the opposers are concerned about is that they will lose the functionally of simply typing {{unreferenced section}}, and so will be forced to type {{unreferenced|section}}. Provided there is a crystal clear confirmation that users will not experience any change whatsoever, and can continue to type {{unreferenced section}} then this discussion can be closed and the merge can go ahead. My concern is similar to other opposers, that sometimes in template mergers there is a vague assurance that there will be no change, but when the merge takes place some functionality is lost - perhaps because the proposer or the user doing the merge didn't quite understand the concerns. While we're here, it would be useful for all article maintenance templates which have a section parameter to have that function accessed by simply typing {{template section}} and vice versa, so there is consistency across all templates. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given SilkTork's point above, I would like to propose that we speedily roll back to this version, which was in effect a redirect from {{Unreferenced section}} to {{Unreferenced|section}}, until that was changed boldly in 2015 by SMcCandlish. Given that user's vote for merge above, there seems little reason not to roll back to that version, noting that the change will have no impact on users of either template. {{Unreferenced section}} will never be going away, and will show the same output as before. Because of the need to get rid of the disruptive TfD notice on 200,000 articles, if nobody objects, then I will close this request later today and revert back to that version (I know I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I can't see any good reason not to do this right now). If there is a good reason not to do this, then please let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable to me. The opposes here (including newer ones below) are all opposing an imaginary straw man of changes to the templates' functionality (or one of them being "blanked" – where did that idea come from?). No one (including me) can provide a reason for the templates to remain split, only "I didn't actually read this" fears about deletion of one of the templates or its features. That said, I would suggestion reviewing the template's parameters and make sure that once turned back into a wrapper, that the one template will still work as expected. If not, then some small code merge will be needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'm not seeing any clear rationale for the advantages of doing this. Clearly, it has a downside; the possibility of the code change breaking the template. So for no visible difference, and no change in the way it is called, why do it? It is just make-work for a coding guru. SpinningSpark 15:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support per User:Jonesey95. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Amakuru above. The fact that it was basically like that before is a pretty good reason to go back. No impact on template use is a good thing. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above Don't fix what aint broken, Both templates are extremely helpful with dealing with unsourced articles or sections. –Davey2010Talk 21:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose busy-work for no benefit, and in the mean time this tagging messes with thousands of templated articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It sounds like we're going to do the rollback so this template again becomes just a wrapper. Please don't forget to fix the documentation at template:unreferenced, which currently doesn't even mention the "section" parameter, except at the bottom under TemplateData, where it says it's deprecated. I'm unhappy about this whole mess because I have just gotten used to using "unreferenced section". Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merger: There should be separate "unreferenced" templates for whole articles as well as sections of articles. If we lose the ability to have specific-section "unreferenced" templates, it will make it more difficult to indicate to other editors which parts of articles are in most need of sources. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: these 2 templates may be the same kind, but they are used in different situations, 1 is article, and the another is for sections. 333-blue 04:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there's a parameter that lets you change the text, example {{Unreferenced section|list}}, so why shouldn't you be able to do the same thing for sections? You can just put {{Unreferenced|list}} or {{Unreferenced|section}}, that's what I'm thinking. By the way, {{Unreferenced list}} redirects to {{Unreferenced section}} even though it uses the wrong text. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, please leave these as they are, they are simple to use, work well, and changing them would be needlessly confusing. If it ain't broke... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:I am with User:Chiswick Chap on this.Orenburg1 (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional support per Jonesey95. I don't care how the backend works as long as I can type {{unreferenced section}} and get the template that notes the section is unreferenced, but I understand the argument about simplifying maintenance, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2017 (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:Union Bulldogs football coach navbox 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) feminist 10:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EXISTING... only two articles. The category is a better fit than a navbox. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:41, 16 January 2017 (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:RugbyUnionAt1920SummerOlympics 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 2017 January 25 Primefac (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2017 (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/2017_January_16&oldid=1083550609"