Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

Contents

June 5Edit

Template:Super OverEdit

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. The strongest argument for keeping this template is that we could potentially lose valuable information regarding the Super Over, but a portion of those editors also felt this template was too unweildy/large. The template is rather large compared to entire-match templates; the last comment details how this issue can be dealt with without a template, and the concerns about size and excessive detail swing the consensus in favour of deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Template includes ball-by-ball detail which is excessive and no reliable source is providing for verification. SocietyBox (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Added the module, which should clearly suffer the same fate as the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an overly esoteric way of essentially saying X team won in extra time. As the nom says, it fails WP:V. All the cricket scorecards will show that a team beat another team in the super over, and that's all we need to add to matches on WP when that applies. Adding the whole template for a single over for one match is a hugh distraction to the rest of the fixture. If someone wants a more detailed breakdown of what happened, ball by ball, they can find it elsewhere. There's no need to replicate it on WP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this is just WP:FANCRUFT, no need for such a detailed template on an over of cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see some very slight value in keeping it, but only for matches where there is detailed coverage of the match on the article page (including a full scorecard), which would typically only be tournament finals. Using alongside a standard {{Single-innings cricket match}} is completely disproportionate: the Super Over template is 10 lines long, a basic usage of the match template is 5 lines long. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is similar to penalties in football. However, I agree that it need not be that detailed. 117.198.112.144 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep , it's shows a special innings (Super Over) in T20 cricket. For a whole match we update the singl innings template, just like that super over is also should be shown. Nivas88 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keep, How can you are not getting source about Super over for the inngings. Super over Scorecard is available in the original link of that match. It's so funny Lol...
If super over template will delete then add another single innings template to show super over details... 2405:204:610F:AC6A:97F9:E182:439A:E12F (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is way too much detail and would be better served by a sentence of prose added as a note, if necessary, to the template dealing with the match scorecard. Even that is essentially a MIRROR of something that would be even better served by an external link to one of the many places that cricket scorecards are kept online. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessarily long and verbose. Also, what's the point of having a bowler column and putting the same name 6 times? sudhanva (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete, overly detailed and rarely properly sourced. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - To address comments that this is too detailed, I propose that the "Bowler" column be dropped, since the entire is bowled by a single nominated bowler. Also, the "Batsman" column should be called "Batter" so that it can also be used for women's matches. MadScientist (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WP:CRICKET.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Lugnuts summed it up perfectly. It's not needed. StickyWicket (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are situations where a template like this could be useful, e.g. in the article about the final of a knockout T20 tournament. It's not perfect, but I think it's on its way to being a very good way of representing this info. – PeeJay 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a mirror of every single scorecard, or part-scorecard, of every cricket match ever played. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We do keep a lot of match scores, which is perfectly normal. As long as noone is argueing to delete most scores, looks like this template helps keeping thing tidy, so keep it. Although it looks like it needs cleanup that is no reason to delete. - Nabla (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Go to 2011 SLC Super Provincial Twenty20#Statistics and scroll up a tiny bit to see it in use. I understand that the Super Over is critical in matches in which it's used, but why do we need more detail than on entire matches that didn't tie? We have more detail on the Ruhuna v. Wayamba Super Over than about the rest of the match, and more detail on it than on any of the earlier matches in the tournament. Why is "Ruhuna won the Super Over" neither sufficient nor almost-sufficient? At most, couldn't you say "Ruhuna won the Super Over by 1 ball" or "...by 3 runs" or something like that? I don't see any benefit to its inclusion, even here in the article covering the final of a knockout T20 tournament as cited by PeeJay2K3. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
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:НаселениеEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

After unraveling the excessively complicated code, this is nothing more than a template that is used to store data, and each piece of data it stores is used on one or zero pages. * Pppery * survives 23:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The Russian equivalent of the template (ru:Шаблон:Население) is used on over 74,000 pages, so I'd assume having an English equivalent at least helps when translating articles from there. – Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Chronology of military events in the American Civil WarEdit

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 convert to list article. With the move to create a draft based on this template, there is a slight consensus to move in a "listification" direction as opposed to outright deletion. In order to preserve attribution, the template will be merged into the existing draft. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

unused MASSIVE navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: First of all, this template is within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Then, it is an extension at a chronological level of this template: Template:American Civil War wich it is linked: see navbox "Combatants Theaters Campaigns Battles States" in "Template:American Civil War". Furthermore, the number of its navbox is lower than that of "Template:American Civil War". It was more useful (for Wikipedia Community) "alive" than "dead": can, where appropriate, also be modified rather than deleted! Finally, this template is cleary designated to help the users to navigate in the American Civil War "in the timeframe" related to: "Campaigns", "Battles" plus one general "Appendix" >>> No valid reason for deletion: improve (it is possible) do not destroy! User talk:FDRMRZUSA (26 March 2019; 15,45 UTC+1).
  • Keep. The template is not unused but used subordinate to another template. However I agree that this is not optimal and could need some thoughts and work; e.g. usage on its own and the Appendix section being either deleted or replaced with a link to the aforementioned superior template. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – As GELongstreet says, it's not unused, it's linked through Template:American Civil War on 600 or so pages. But I agree it could use some rework, with the appendix surgically removed. Mojoworker (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Since someone undid my change which nested this template in Template:American Civil War, saying it should be merged, I concur and support merging this template into Template:American Civil War (which may be the best long term solution), with keep as second choice. Mojoworker (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is linked to repeatedly, but still has no transclusions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's not linked from those articles directly, but through another template (Template:American Civil War). And while it shouldn't be linked in that way, it should instead be transcluded as a nested template, but kept nonetheless. It's not really a candidate to be converted to an article, as it really is a template. Mojoworker (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and made the transclusion. Mojoworker (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
While I was gone on vacation someone undid my change, saying it should be merged instead of nested, so I'm switching to merge (see above). Mojoworker (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • convert to an article or delete if there is already an article. links from navboxes should generally point to articles, not to content hidden in other navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The argument that this template "is useful" is somewhat evenly matched by the long-standing belief that templates holding what is essentially article-space content (whether in navbox form or directly storing article text) should not be linked to directly. Given that this template was viewed less than 10 times a day before this TFD nomination the "is useful" argument is somewhat weakened. At this point it's a tossup between deleting outright and converting into some sort of article (which can then still be linked from {{American Civil War}}); I would like to see more opinions on which way this should go before a final decision is reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with merging it into Template:American Civil War? Mojoworker (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Zackmann08, FDRMRZUSA, GELongstreet, DannyS712, Mojoworker, Primefac, and Frietjes: Comment. I made Draft:Chronology of military events in the American Civil War and would like your thoughts. Would this page suffice as a list-class article? –MJLTalk 19:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • definitely an improvement over the navbox, and has room for expansion/elaboration. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • From the comments above by FDRMRZUSA (the original creator of the template), he meant it as "an extension at a chronological level of this template: Template:American Civil War". That template is already large, but I understand FDRMRZUSA's logic in creating this template as an extension of it, even if the execution of the task was unorthodox. It wasn't intended as a list article, but go ahead and create one as a fork for its own sake if you think it has value, but aside from being organized by campaign, the data is redundant with that of List of American Civil War battles. I still think it should be merged into Template:American Civil War, so that it would be similar to this diff. Mojoworker (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Mojoworker: Considering 60% of our readers will never be able to view the template (mobile views), that is one of my primary concerns. –MJLTalk 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @Mojoworker: According to user MJL's reasons (mobile views), it is necessary delete all templates (not only my template), it's crazy!!! FDRMRZUSA (talk) 18,30 1 June 2019 (UTC+1)
          @FDRMRZUSA: That is not what I said. Second, MOS:ACCESS exists. Third, your strawman doesn't even make sense. Navboxes are used to supplement the desktop reader's experience by being a convenient navigational tool. It is in no way supposed to add content nor curate content. That is what list and outline articles are for. Finally, please stop referring to it as your template. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of content. –MJLTalk 02:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I fully share Mojoworker’s comment (thank you Mojoworker). The page “Draft:Chronology of military events in the American Civil War” is boring read and horrible (even if improved in future): it did not the advantgaes of a navbox. The chronological events are effectively expressed by a navbox visual potential. Honestly I are unable to understand the problem that exists there keep alive my template: aren’t there larger problems in Wikipedia??? FDRMRZUSA (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC+1)
  • Delete According to Wikipedia:template namespace, The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. An unused template that is linked to does not contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, but instead contains wiki markup intended to be viewed itself, and therefore should not be in template namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Viking Invasion of EnglandEdit

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:Viking Invasion of England. There is a lot of room here for interpretation here as what is to be done. If it turns out there is too much information to reasonably include in one template, there is no prejudice for a split, and if it turns out the templates should be separate, there is no issue. In other words, there's no opposition to the merger as proposed, but not really any consensus on how it should be done based on the comments left in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Viking Invasion of England with Template:Scandinavian England.
Seems like much overlapping scope. Might as well merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment There is a bit of a cultural difference at the high level here, with one template suggesting That parts of England were once called "Scandinavian England" and is, or was, a place. "Viking Invasion" is "limited", in name, anyway, to an event (series of events). If I had to go with one name it would be the latter. I like the "Viking Invasion" structure a little better. I wonder if "Scandinavian England" might be split, with most merged into "Viking Invasion," the other maybe more cultural to "Danelaw England." Student7 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Template:Scandinavian England has been renamed to Template:Norse activity in the British Isles. PPEMES (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Death in Germanic mythologyEdit

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) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Death in Germanic mythology with Template:Germanic pagan practices.
Do you think this one could be merge, for convenience? PPEMES (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Like above, this template functions as a collection of items for a specialized topic. Merging it would contribute to template bloat. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Bloated? Come on. It wouldn't be a large template. PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles treeEdit

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 subst. into List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. For attribution purposes it will then be turned into a redirect to the list after being removed from the other pages. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:FANCRUFT. Misuse of navbox. Should probably be reformatted and included once at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters if at all. --woodensuperman 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Strong Keep, (??) no reason to get rid of an interesting and informative template like this. I can see putting some templates up for deletion, but not good ones. Thanks. (p.s. WP:FANCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a proper WP:NAVBOX. There is already a navbox at {{The Vampire Chronicles}} which contains all the characters. This one does not need to be transcluded on every article. If this information is kept it should appear once only (at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters) in a different format. --woodensuperman 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Although {{The Vampire Chronicles}} template lists the 13 individual character articles this one shows many more, as well as giving readers the interesting familial relationships and timeline. Readers (at least me) find it interesting and informative. It improves the encyclopedia, improves the pages it is (and can be) placed on, and is a fine addition to Wikipedia's Vampire Chronicles collection. There is nothing wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with it. It's content masquerading as a navbox. It certainly does not belong along the bottom of multiple pages. If this was a single use template sitting at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, I'd probably have left it alone, but what the hell is it doing sitting at the bottom of Anne Rice? This needs at the very least converted to a different format, and used sparingly on extremely relevant articles. Something like Aztec emperors family tree, or Noldor#House of Finwë. This is NOT a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Anne Rice is linked in the title. The family tree helps the understanding of the linked pages, and provides the readers with a valuable visual aide concept map to the topic. And it improves rather than harms the encyclopedia (which is what all of these discussions are about). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
She may be linked in the title, but this isn't a navbox and the content is tangential to her biography. And cluttering up pages with family trees disguised as navboxes on irrelevant pages does harm the encyclopedia and certainly does not improve the experience for anyone. --woodensuperman 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"for anyone" is incorrect, when I first saw the template it was interesting and informative to my mental-map of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You may find it "interesting", but that doesn't stop it from being in the wrong place. --woodensuperman 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Your link is to another opinion essay. Interesting is a good descriptor of one of the many attributes a good template can have. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The template should not be used as a navbox at the bottom of the page, but there are other family tree templates. There are appropriate uses for them. This is more a question of where it should be used and how the template should be formatted. The template should not be deleted just because of those things. If there are no other uses for it, it could be included just at the page mentioned in the nom, but it could be neater to keep the code as a separate template page. M.Clay1 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason it is using the navbox markup? If this is changed, then editors might not mistake it for a navbox and use it as such. --woodensuperman 07:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
For whatever reason, family tree templates use navbox markup. I don't think many people would confuse it for a navbox. I've never seen one used as a navbox before. Its use as such seems like a unilateral decision by User:Randy Kryn. I think most editors will agree that it shouldn't be there. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems {{Downton Abbey family tree}} and {{Half-elven family tree}} manage to not use the navbox markup. I would suggest that this method be employed by all family tree templates. --woodensuperman 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete or reformat per Template:Downton Abbey family tree. navboxes are hidden in mobile view, so if this is really important we should show it to all viewers, but if it's simply for navigation, then we don't need to present the links in tree form. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Iran Men's squad 2015 WT Taekwondo World ChampionshipEdit

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 June 25. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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:Northern Arizona EliteEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Northern Arizona Elite with Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite.
{{Northern Arizona Elite}} is an older, unused duplicate of {{Footer Northern Arizona Elite}}. It has no transclusions and all of the information and functionality in the former (which is now outdated anyways) is available in the latter. Habst (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Are either of those even valid templates? Northern Arizona Elite is not an article. I can't see how if the group itself isn't notable there needs to be a navigation template for its members. --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    • They definitely are, NAZ Elite has received a lot of mainsteam media coverage and has been deserving of an article for a while now in my opinion (like at [1] [2]). Wikipedia just takes time to catch up sometimes as there aren't many active athletics editors. --Habst (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • delete both as there is no parent article (cart goes after horse). Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • hi Frietjes, thank you for your vote but i really don't think it would be a good outcome at all to delete the template, i proposed the merge here to improve them and i think that would be a step backwards. i created the style of template originally for Template:Footer Nike Oregon Project and Template:Footer Bowerman Track Club, two clubs that rival NAZ Elite in the US, and i was actually really excited to see that GoOKC adapted it for NAZ Elite, and i wanted to do him a favor in return by doing some housekeeping on the templates -- not intending at all to trigger a delete of his work. if you think having an NAZ article would help, i think i am capable of writing one, but it will have to take a few days because i am in the middle of a move. in retrospect, i probably should have merged the two articles myself as an entirely non-controversial merge. can i delay the vote as the nominator until after my NAZ Elite article is completed then? thanks, --Habst (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Habst, you can request to have it moved to draft- or user-space until the article is completed. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • hi Frietjes, the problem with that is then the articles will have to be downgraded and have the transclusions removed while the template is deleted -- athletics coverage (especially in the US) is super limited on wikipedia and NAZ Elite is definitely notable. if possible i'd like to delay the vote as the nominator instead, or even withdraw it with no action for now which would be better than deleting. thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
hi Woodensuperman, thank you for merging the templates. that was the original goal of this tfd, but i fear that putting it up here was a huge mistake that i hope you can help me fix. for the reasons above i really do think NAZ is notable enough to have an article and template. do you know if it is possible for me to postpone or close the vote that i started, because i did not start it with the intention of deleting the template? i hope you understand that in my opinion, the vote has gone out of hand because the english wikipedia has a severe shortage of athletics articles when compared to topics in published RSes, so in my opinion deleting templates for a notable track club in the U.S. would be a step backwards.
also, i see that you have nominated Template:Brooks Beast Track Club, Template:New Jersey New York Track Club, Template:Reebok Boston Track Club, Template:Saucony Freedom Track Club, and Template:Tinman Elite all for deletion. you only noticed those templates because i posted about Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite here, right? i am being honest with you, this was my greatest fear. i know that i can save them all, but i need time to draft my rationale. i do think we should have standards for inclusion and of course we shouldn't include random teams that aren't notable, but all the templates you inserted are from notable teams that should all have athlete articles. i still need to think about my best course of action, but i am worried that we will not reach the most fair outcome so i think we should really be careful about taking our time with these nominations. thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Db-f8Edit

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 to Template:Now Commons. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The preferred way to flag F8-eligible files is via {{subst:ncd}}, which allows files to be sorted by the date they were tagged, so as to not overwhelm the main CSD category and allow adequate time to research/review each transferred file. In my experience, editors that use this tag are unfamiliar with our local file policies and file policies on Commons, and end up tagging files which were either inappropriately transferred or require many fixes in order to be acceptable for Commons. I think the best solution is to redirect this tag to Template:Now commons dated, so that there will be more opportunity for experienced editors to review tagged files and verify their eligibility for Commons. FASTILY 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • If I will still be able to delete using F8 in Twinkle's CSD menu without tagging the file, then I can support a redirect to Template:Now Commons. Otherwise, I oppose. @Amorymeltzer: Could you confirm what Twinkle's behavior would be if this were redirected. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @JJMC89: It will work as {{Now Commons}} has a delete-reason span, although that's a bit tautological (per below) as this was specifically added because such a redirect previously broke Twinkle. ~ Amory (utc) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some history/context, Twinkle used {{Now Commons}} up until March/April, when I changed Twinkle to use {{db-f8}}; what is now Template:Db-f8 was created in 2007 about six months after {{db-nowcommons}} was first added to Twinkle, and Twinkle had never been updated. More accurately, Twinkle was using {{db-nowcommons}}, which from 2007 to 2010 pointed to (what is now) {{db-f8}}, but was redirected in 2010 by Geni to [deal] with CSD flood, and as far as I can tell that just stuck. Doing so broke F8 deletion via Twinkle for 6.5 years until MusikAnimal added the delete-reason. ~ Amory (utc) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly well-versed or interested in filespace stuff, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but if all of the above is true, then sure, that makes sense. Twinkle provides a thorough description of the criteria for F8 tagging/deletion, but if people are ignoring that and those working in filespace areas want a different workflow, then we should do so. F8 is a weird beast, so perhaps the thing to do is turn it into a Di-style tag, like with {{Di-no fair use rationale}} or {{Di-no license}}? That seems appropriate to me (again, salt) and would take it out of CAT:SD (as desired). If that's done I think the thing to do would be remove F8 tagging from Twinkle's CSD module and move it to the DI module to be alongside tagging for F4, F11, etc. Deletion via CSD would still remain. If this is redirected per above, I'd probably do the same move from CSD to DI, although I don't love the idea of having {{Now Commons}} in both the CSD and DI modules. ~ Amory (utc) 10:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on whether to keep this template, but it makes a plausible redirect so I am against deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking for deletion, just a redirect :) -FASTILY 00:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
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 lineEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Unused rail route map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Useddenim: Do you remember if this was used anywhere? Most of the diagram seems to be duplicated by {{Salem–Virudhachalam line}}, which is in use, but I don't think there's a route diagram for the rest of the line. It's not clear to me if the two apparently discontinuous segments are actually one line. Jc86035 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenDragon2293Return and Chandan Guha: can you answer this question? Useddenim (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Balablitz: I was not associated with these templates. Balablitz may be able to say, if it was used or not. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim, Chandan Guha, and Jc86035: My apologies for the delay in reply. I just had a look at various pages of Southern Railway. It seems that part of the line i.e Salem-Vriddhachalam section is already covered under the Template:Salem–Virudhachalam line template used in Salem Junction railway station page and the part from Vriddhachalam-Cuddalore Port Jn is covered under Chennai Egmore–Thanjavur main line template. We can either create a new page and link this template to it and in pages where it exist, we remove the stations and just add a connecting arrow (What is the usual Wiki convention here ? Do we create separate pages for terminus to terminus connections ?) or we can discard the template. I prefer the first way here as it reduces the size of the template and makes it a bit neat. Also a point to note is that there is a new line planned in between the Salem-Vriddhachalam part. I am planning to work on the Southern Railways after I have finished work under the Eastern & NE Railways. Please let me know what is your decision in this regards. ---- GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest making the overlapped sections collapsible, and then adding the template to all relevant pages to provide context for the others. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? Useddenim (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - still unused after all this time. --Gonnym (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Capitals of provinces of ThailandEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the concept of a province "capital" in Thailand. Originally, this listed the towns/cities the provinces were named after (and which served as the seat of the provincial offices), but as the offices of some provinces have moved location, this has morphed into an WP:OR listing of municipalities in which the offices are located, labelling them as "capitals" where no reliable source does. It's absurd to say Ban Tom is the capital of Phayao Province and Bang Rin of Ranong. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of capitals in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep (I've copied and pasted this from the List of Capitals in Thailand AfD) for now, at least procedurally. For instance, searching "Phetchaburi" "capital" brings up a number of sources which cite it as a provincial capital. For instance, [3] lists several regional cities as capitals. The infobox for each province lists a capital as well. If we take the nom at face value, there's going to be a fair bit of cleanup required, but considering there's evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English, I think this list is valid until otherwise shown. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't researched this yet but just a comment on your last statement. There is no such thing as evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English - either Thailand has provincial capitals or doesn't. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The AfD has been closed as redirect to Provinces of Thailand (which I've adjusted to use "Namesake town/city" instead of "capital" to avoid confusion). User:SportingFlyer, does this affect your !vote? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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 Prefecture JapanEdit

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 subst and delete. The "specific fields" concerns presented by many of the "keep" votes seems to have been mitigated by including {{Infobox region symbols}} as an embedded box. There is no prejudice (nor was there any) about creating templates designed for translating infoboxes from other language projects. Per some of the concerns, though, I would ask that the final subst-able version avoid blank params to avoid unnecessary code entered into the article (in particular the {{Infobox region symbols}} footnote). Primefac (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Replace and delete

Prefecture-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

Other entities either use Infobox city Japan or transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly. No reason found, why 49 prefectures shall have their own wrapper.

Visualisation of Japan place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in Japan

78.54.185.74 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The template was kept in this TfD from 2011. – Uanfala (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • My argument in that discussion - at which point the wrapper was unused - was "Keep or redirect to Infobox Settlement; to discourage creation of a new, redundant template." That does preclude replacement and deletion now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, it makes maintenance of the articles a lot harder. After a merge, and a year from now: E.g. how do you check that all Japanese articles still links to Prefectures of Japan, Municipalities of Japan and so on? With a template or wrapper its done automatic. How do you check it for all the articles about Egyptian settlements? Christian75 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. The template proposed for replacement and transcluded on 49 articles does not ensure "that all Japanese articles still links to Prefectures of Japan, Municipalities of Japan and so on" nor does it check that "for all the articles about Egyptian settlements". 77.191.146.215 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    How do you ensure that the 49 (47) prefectures links correct after a year? But you are right, after a merge the Japanese prefectures will be "fully undetectable", and it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistency between the articles infoboxes. You are saying it "Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, [...]": And I ask how? E.g. how do you change a label links for all prefectures (settlements) for a given country (with reduced maintenance?) Christian75 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. But you are right, after a merge the Japanese prefectures will be "fully undetectable" - I did not claim that and they are "detectable", e.g. via Category:Prefectures of Japan. it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistency between the articles infoboxes - Direct inclusion of Infobox settlement as is done with ~420000 other articles will ensure some consistencies, the rest will be done by the same procedures as for those 420000. Behaviorial note: Don't claim things I didn't say. 78.55.20.251 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    One of the meanings of "FUD" is "Fully undetectable"... But please explain how the maintenance burden is lowered. About the 420000 other articles - it should be rolled back, to at least wrapper "level". Christian75 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete - only 49 transclusions. Japan already has one country-specific box, two is one too much. TerraCyprus (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Christian75: the infobox uses a fair number of specific fields that will be cumbersome to edit and difficult to maintain if it were replaced with the generic template. – Uanfala (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    FUD. Only included 49 times. And which of the specific fields had its value changed in the past 10 years? None? 89.12.15.31 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Note : per Christian75: the infobox uses a fair number of specific fields - that user didn't bring up that claim. Are you stating the untrue on purpose? 89.12.203.15 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    You know, the TfDs you participate in would be a lot better if you didn't pretend you didn't understand the English language and if you stopped throwing derogatory labels at everyone who disagreed with you. As for your more substantial point: I don't know how many values of specific fields have been changed in the past 10 years (the template as a whole has been substantially rewritten [4] so I'd assume there might be at least a few), but that's not part of what I was arguing. – Uanfala (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    No evidence, no substance. You know, the TfDs you participate in would be a lot better if you didn't pretend you didn't understand the English language No, I don't know. Where did I pretend anything or is it you just putting "derogatory labels" on other users personality? throwing derogatory labels at everyone who disagreed with you - any proof that happened? Re As for your more substantial point: I don't know how many values of specific fields have been changed - i.e. your "Keep"-reasons are not based on facts at all and come down to pure voting, something you complained about [5] - hypocrite? 89.12.203.15 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note possible canvassing by nominator on meta (1, 2, 3). * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    No, these users have been involved before: [6], [7]. WP:AGF 77.191.247.206 (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    That doesn't make it not canvassing. You notified me, Pigsonthewing, and Darwinek on our meta talk pages. Pigsonthewing and Darwinek and I all supported at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_7#Infobox_settlement_wrappers, so you have therefore notified only users who expressed a preference against {{infobox settlement}} wrappers earlier, an example of votestacking. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    Defamation.: No user was against substitution of "Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan" within the TFD time of 7 days. Cape Verde, Peru, Russia are currently outside Japan. 77.13.95.37 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    Meta as defence against stalking: It was done on meta, because there is stalking, see Uanfala, when s/he voted here - just after an admin was asked to close. 77.13.95.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    If you notify some editors involved in a previous TfD, you must notify all editors who've commented, see WP:APPNOTE. – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Allow me to negate the canvassing by doing that, then. Pinging all participants in the two TfDs the IP linked to above, except for users who already participated in this one: @Tom (LT), Gonnym, Tisquesusa, Underlying lk, Markussep, RexxS, Ymblanter, Agathoclea, Nyttend, Hhkohh, Kusma, Matthiasb, Zackmann08, Scope creep, and Calliopejen1:. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. The set of articles is very stable, no addition of new articles to be expected. It is also very small. JelgavaLV (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Stable set of articles. Replacement with our standard infobox will not make the maintenance harder, on the contrary, this standardization will reduce the maintenance and overall burden.--Darwinek (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, replacing templates with wrappers is an unfortunate tendency and must be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • "replacing templates with wrappers is an unfortunate tendency and must be stopped." Indeed. This is, though, a proposal to replace a wrapper with a template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Calliopejen1 in the previous discussion — this has several dedicated fields for transliteration from Japanese, which is a useful component that wouldn't be useful in the main Infobox settlement. We shouldn't put Japan-specific components into a general template, and getting rid of these components' use in current articles by deleting the current template wouldn't be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: An extra Infobox for 49 articles, because of "several dedicated fields for transliteration from Japanese"? Either Nyttend is not aware of Template:Infobox settlement#Name and transliteration or something else is going on. How is it done for articles about places outside Japan, e.g. in China or to begin with, about places in Japan that use IB settlement directly, e.g. Kansai region? 77.13.247.168 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I said it before, an certainly will says it until end of days: It was big nonsense to start combining all those templates into Infobox settlement. Whoever started this infobox settlement never relly edited settlement articles. Did you guys never wonder about that no other big language version did ever follow the English wikipedia on this erratic path? Did you ever compare the source text of, say, Stow, Ohio an de:Stow (Ohio). If so, this discussion won't exist. Which infobox is more easy to use? Editing articles with Templage:settlement is terrible. For us translators it's unusable. The translation tool does not handle it, cannot handle it. It's time to turn around and re-instate individual infoboxes for each country and type of settlement. (BTW: A prefecture isn't a settlement at all – it's an administrative unit like a county.) The nmination is nonsense, any further nomination of this kind is big nonsense. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • As the nomination clearly says: "Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is 'used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete - after looking at the parameters, the most specialized ones (Flower, Tree, Bird, etc.) seem to be of dubious relevance.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (with a caveat) substitution would lead to "blank" parameters being present in articles. This will just confuse new editors, who lets say are changing what is currently |Municipalities=, would then have to change |blank1_info_sec1=. If the intended wrapper template {{Infobox settlement}} can handle these parameters which currently need the "blank" parameters, I would support substitution. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Dreamy Jazz: |Municipalities= as well as |Districts= belong to |parts=, this has been fixed [8]. The other blank fields belong to flower, tree, bird, fish; the code has been changed, so that editors will see the "name" of a field even if it is empty [9], the code is as follows:
<!-- blank fields (section 1) -->
| blank_name_sec1         = Flower
| blank_info_sec1         = {{{Flower|}}}
| blank1_name_sec1        = Tree
| blank1_info_sec1        = {{{Tree|}}}
| blank2_name_sec1        = Bird
| blank2_info_sec1        = {{{Bird|}}}
| blank3_name_sec1        = Fish
| blank3_info_sec1        = {{{Fish|}}}
77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem still is that the blank parameters are still there. I would want to see the parameters |Flower=, |Tree=, |Bird= and |Fish= in {{Infobox settlement}} before substitution. If these parameters are not added, my vote is keep. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: What in your opinion is the "problem" with blank parameters being there? The {{Infobox settlement}} has been coded with blank parameters, do you want to deny users to use them as coded? And if you think these biota symbols are that relevant to get their own parameters, why don't you propose them? For U.S. states biota symbols are not included in {{Infobox settlement}}, but managed by an extra box - are you aware of any other set of administrative territorial entities that have biota symbols within {{Infobox settlement}}? @Pigsonthewing and Underlying lk: what do you think? 77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It is that in 49 articles unclear blank parameters will be placed. For new users it may be confusing how to change a parameter which uses a blank parameter. In visual editor, this is only more confusing as where you would expect a simplified name (e.g. the parameter |coordinates= in visual editor is presented with a header of Coordinates), the blank parameters have two input boxes which are named by their parameter names (i.e. "blank2_info_sec1" and "Blank name section 1"). These, I can only imagine are confusing to new editors, who expect to see an input boxes named "Tree" and "Fish", not "Blank name section 1" and "blank3_name_sec1" (their current names). This could be alleviated slightly by giving these blank parameters nicer names for visual editor (i.e. nice names in templatedata) which could specify these are custom parameters in a clear way, but this is difficult as this name would have to fit all cases (i.e. not just this template), and this does not still get past the issue of new users using source editor, who won't have the visual editor to help them understand what parameter is the right one to change. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 08:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, if you move those to {{Infobox region symbols}} there shouldn't be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Frietjes thanks for this hint, done [10]. 77.11.252.115 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
try the version in the sandbox to eliminate the spurious horizontal line, and suppress the symbols heading when the symbols are not specified. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom and above comments. The extra state symbols are not something that should be added through the backdoor. This template has only 3, but as Frietjes linked somewhere above, there are dozens of options for US states. --Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Top25Edit

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. No prejudice against renomination, merge discussion, or TFD for the other template. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Placed very haphazardly, no clear reason why it appears in some places but not others. Newer template {{Top 25 Report}} (which I created), which could potentially be moved to this title, is handled much better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: If you intend for the newer template to replace this one, it would be great if you could document your template. --Gonnym (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • How does the documentation look now? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Much better. I've tweaked it a bit to be more standard in look. --Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Is the |place= parameter wanted in the new template? --Gonnym (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The |place= parameter worked well with the old template, which only handles one week. In the new template, you would need to count which week it belongs to, or use a mechanism in the same parameter. I decided that the second method works better, hence the parentheses option I added. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, since this basically replaced the previous one and has more transclusions then there is no need for both. Support replacement and deletion of this one.
  • Oppose I'm not convinced that WP:TFD#REASONS number 2 is met ('redundant to a better-designed template'). Some editors might prefer {{Top25}} for its more economic use of space (especially if the talk page is already cluttered with lots of WikiProject banners and other header notices). I also think the guidance given in its documentation about where and how to use it (i.e. not for pages that are consistently popular, or recurring events like holidays that have predictable recurring traffic spikes) makes a lot of sense. Colin M (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Scott Morrison sidebarEdit

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 June 14. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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:HC Slavia Praha rosterEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

very old roster. if someone wants to add a current roster, it can be added to the parent article directly. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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:Timrå IK rosterEdit

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

old and unused. if someone wants to add a recent roster, the roster can be added to the parent article directly. Frietjes (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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:2016–17 Belgian First Amateur Division tableEdit

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
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).