Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 18 April 20 >

April 19 edit

Template:Stnd 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) Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template creates disambiguated links to railway station articles in the format Name (Service station). This convention was generally used in North American articles, and deprecated by the WP:USSTATION guideline. Every link this template creates at present is a redirect. The template could be modified to use the format Name station (Service), but as articles are no longer preemptively disambiguated this will probably lead to broken links or further redirects. There are better alternatives such as {{station link}} or the various system-specific templates enumerated in this templates' documentation. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This method is no longer needed. –Daybeers (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Subst:}} with {{rws}} which will redirect to the correct page. Useddenim (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Delete as unused, given that WMSR has taken care of the matter. Useddenim (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: Maybe redirect isn't the right word. But {{rws}} is a much more flexible template because it accommodates all five of the station disambiguation formats. Useddenim (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: Sure, no disagreement there. I'm just saying that there's no need to guess when there's a template whose data module knows (in theory, anyway) the canonical link to an article. That's especially useful if the station article gets moved to a non-standard name, which does happen from time to time. {{rws}} isn't future-proof. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: Are you suggesting a wrapper like has been done with {{Amtk}}? Not quite sure how that would work in this case. –Daybeers (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was suggesting that having it invoke {{rws}} (which is actually a redirect to {{tl|stnlnk} }) would be much simpler than changing the multiple occurrences of the template on the 200+ pages it's transcluded on to. Useddenim (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter in the context of a TfD discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and changed every occurrence of {{stnd}} in the article and template namespaces. As far as I can tell, it is no longer transcluded anywhere. WMSR (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2019 (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).

Rochester Subway templates 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Rochester Subway. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2019 (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:Italian general election, 1994/Position/Deputy, Licata 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and no place to even place it. 1994 Italian general election does not list the elections per region and 1994 Italian general election in Sicily does not exist. Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2019 (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:Italian general election, 2006-Senate-Unione 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. The article 2006 Italian general election uses so many other tables that I'm not sure where this could even fit. Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2019 (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:Italian general election, 2006-House of Freedoms 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. The article 2006 Italian general election#Main coalitions and parties uses a different table for the coalition parties. Gonnym (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2019 (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:Italian general election, 2006 – The Union 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. The article 2006 Italian general election#Main coalitions and parties uses a different table for the coalition parties. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2019 (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:Jersey election, 2005 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template but also very badly created. This doesn't just list the 2006 election results, but also previous election results which makes this very hard to understand. Gonnym (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2019 (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:SunClock 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 no consensus. The main concerns are that it is not accurate and that the scope might need changing. Neither of these necessitates deletion of the template. If the concerns raised here are not addressed following discussion (or it's determined that this template really isn't needed), then there is NPASR. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template has multiple inaccuracies. I think it should be deleted because there are other places like this one that show the same thing. Mstrojny (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see any inaccuracies, the SunClock template has benefits above other versions because it not only shows the sun's position relative to time of day but also takes into account season, climate, distance from equator, and daylight savings effects. Plus, the example you link is offline and is relatively non-secure (according to check performed with my browser), not something we can or want to use. Kingsif (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: The template has the following inaccuracies. The times in Mexico, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Spain are all wrong. Are you saying the template can be improved upon rather than deleting it? Interstellarity (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could easily improve it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's hard to figure out the rationale for the countries chosen. It seems to be very heavily weighted to Latin America, with some time zones being represented by a number of different Latin American countries. Then for some reason Nigeria, Iran, Spain, and Russia (note that Russia actually covers 11 time zones). Maybe rename to "Latin America Sun Clock" and remove the outliers? --Trovatore (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify: instead of showing countries, do show important cities. For instance: New York, São Paulo, London, Paris, Moscow, etc. --Fadesga (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2019 (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:Case preserving encode 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; deleted as G7 by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the documentation, this template was mostly used by {{sec link}}, {{sec link auto}} and {{sec link image}} which were deleted. At Template talk:Case preserving encode it was brought up by User:Anomie that it can be replaced by {{urlencode:{{{1|}}}|wiki}}. Its only usage left is at Template:Template sandbox notice, which can be replaced by the code above. Gonnym (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to understand why people don't discuss stuff like this with the creator first. It saves everyone's time, since most are non-controversial deletes or keeps. I have labelled this {{G7}} as best I can. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
No point in pointing fingers, I could have asked why the creator doesn't comment on the talk page once in the 7 years the question was raised. --Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2019 (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:BillboardURL 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 merge to Template:BillboardURLbyName. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:BillboardURL with Template:BillboardURLbyName.
{{BillboardURL}} has been deprecated in favor of {{BillboardURLbyName}}. All remaining transclusions should be converted to the proper template. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have wrapped the TfM notice at {{BillboardURLbyName}} because that notice breaks cs1|2 citations when this template is used in |url=. Edit: same done to {{BillboardURL}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC) 14:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BillboardURL existed primarily to handle some edge cases where Chartbot could not figure out the proper way to build a reference to BillboardURLByName. Since I'm no longer particularly welcome around here, I no longer run Chartbot, so there probably isn't any good reason to retain BillboardURL.—Kww(talk) 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I marked {{BillboardURL}} as deprecated a while back, but nominating it for a merge is probably what I should have done. BillboardURLByName does everything BillboardURL does, but is easier to use (I think the "chartnum" thing is a relic of a previous URL structure at billboard.com). FWIW, it looks like there are only 11 pages that transclude BillboardURL directly. I'm pretty sure all the remaining transclusions are via {{Single chart}}. Colin M (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2019 (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:Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana character map 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think character maps like this should even exist. The reason of connecting the different remakes of the same film should be solved by a navbox. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is reasonable here, but I'd like to see the navbox first I think. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template has a table which connects the actors who played the same characters different remakes. This could be useful for a film researcher or enthusiast who wants to understand the casting pattern in different film industries. --Anoopkn (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That can be gotten by the researcher researching as appropriate, and we certainly don't need this template for the sole purpose of convenience in a hypothetical use case. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2019 (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:Manichitrathazhu character map 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If one intends to connect the various remakes of the same film, creating a character map is not the solution. Rather, one could consider creating a navbox. This film already has that. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delete here is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template has a table which connects the actors who played the same characters different remakes. This could be useful for a film researcher or enthusiast who wants to understand the casting pattern in different film industries.Anoopkn (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That can also be gotten by a researcher researching as appropriate, and doesn't need a dedicated convenience template for a hypothetical use case. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2019 (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:Infobox surname 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 merge to Template:Infobox given name. Well, the IPs certainly come from the same place and their arguments have a similar wording. And their arguments are not very strong. So consensus in favour of merge as noted by the non-IP accounts Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox surname with Template:Infobox given name.
Much overlapping variables, and for a reason. In fact in many if not in most cases historically and internationally, a surname is or was a given name. It might be time to finally merge this? PPEMES (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't merge, because only one Infobox. It is Infobox surname. The "Infobox given name" is not available.125.161.129.177 (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is can not to be merge. Because, the "Template:Infobox surname" is alone. The "Infobox given name" doesn't exist at the article. The article content is fine and good. 180.251.222.89 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Because, the "Template:Infobox surname" has not paired by "Template:Infobox given name" at the article code. The "Template:Infobox given name" is not exists.180.243.50.148 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello IP 180. Please only make one comment in the future. --Izno (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a clear merge. --Izno (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Can't merge because lack of infobox given name in the article.116.206.28.23 (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sure any closer will already notice this, but just in-case, the 4 IPs are probably the same user. --Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Negative. The article content is surname not given name.110.138.14.170 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Surname and given name is different can not to be merging.125.161.130.232 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:For safety just use ip address. Lets use ip address, too.125.161.131.232 (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2019 (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:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political parties 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 2019 May 6. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (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:Aramean political parties 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 2019 May 6. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (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:La Serena 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Template is now used, but there is NPASR if a different reason is provided. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with numerous WP:REDLINKS Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: once it is updated we would then add it to the relevant articles, so it's no longer unused. Squad navboxes are common and established (see eg Category:Association football squad navigational boxes by country). GiantSnowman 15:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (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:Liloa/Piilani/Moana Family Tree 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 no consensus. A broader discussion about this sort of template may be in order, but as it is now used (and that was the main reason for the nomination) there is NPASR if different reasons are provided. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly plainlinks (WP:EXISTING) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No plainlinks are used. These are explanatory notes/references. The family tree has sources so I have connected it to the intended page so that it is no longer orphaned. There are several other articles this is also intended for. Will fully reference the tree similar to the recently started Template:Kalaniʻōpuʻu, Kamehameha, Kānekapōlei and Peleuli family tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a hard time understanding why this chart is inside a navbox and has a reference section (not a note section, as the head suggests). If this is to be kept, it should be changed to use normal tree chart syntax and not be a hybrid. Just to be clear - If this is the style that is to be kept, then I'm in the opinion that this should be deleted as it violates correct MoS sections, accessibility of font size and misuse of navbox that does not show up on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No longer unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (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:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line 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 2019 May 26. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (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:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds 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 2019 May 15. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 15 May 2019 (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:Basketball in Israel 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 no consensus. NPASR if it's still unused after a few weeks. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and overly-broad navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No idea why it would not be utilized but it seems to be a useful nav tool to me. I suggest keeping and populating the pages with it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- Seems to be doing the same or very similar function as {{Israeli Basketball Super League}} does. No point in having both on the same set of articles. --Gonnym (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see articles here that are not included in and would not belong with the Super League template. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken the liberty to fill in the missing links, so you'll see that {{Basketball in Israel}} already has all the sections for the links of {{Israeli Basketball Super League}}. It already had "teams", "seasons", "final four/finals" and "awards", so currently it already has the entire scope of the other template. What it didn't have, was a full set of links (some seasons missing, some awards missing), updated article names and a better order so sub-sections are actually placed near the parent topic. --Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still has no transclusions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2019 (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:Strawberry Flower albums 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only one directly-related article (Ai no Uta (Strawberry Flower song)); offers no additional navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are not enough articles t o justify this navigational template. Aspects (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2019 (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:Disharmonic Orchestra 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This band's navigational template consists of the band's articles, three albums that redirect to the band's article and a record label. The band's article is the only article where the template is located, so the navigational template navigates nowhere and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2019 (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/2019_April_19&oldid=898879340"