Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< September 1 September 3 >

September 2

edit

Template:Marsaxlokk F.C. 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template not in use and its content is outdated. The club plays in the 2nd division and has currently no notable players, see Marsaxlokk F.C.#Current squad Kq-hit (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2016 (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:Country data Buryat

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused template, double with Template:Country data Buryatia The Banner talk 21:03, 2 September 2016 (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:PII

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 2016 September 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 10 September 2016 (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:Solid

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 G6 by 78.26 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only four transclusions, target website is defunct, and redirects to another, which has no articles on the relevant subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed promising, but sadly should be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2016 (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:Wp-diff

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diff links should not be formatted as "external" links. Redundant to {{Diff}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the originator of the first (back in 2006), I would be quite happy to see it deleted having been subsumed by the slightly-more-recent {{Diff}}! Is somebody going to set a bot to changing them over? —Phil | Talk 15:35, 2 September 2016 (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:WCSP cite

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No subject specific linking. Non-standard date format. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 2 September 2016 (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:Beacon

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 after substitution. I'll modify the template slightly so that it's more obvious what the elink entails. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Used on one article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Beacon .

Go ahead and click on that and see what you get. This is not one whit different from putting {{Google custom|rollingstone.com|Jackson}} into an article. While we do have {{Google custom}}, it's because we use it extensively on talk pages. That rationale does not apply to this {{Beacon}} template, and its explicit intent appears to be to be used inappropriately in articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template links to trusted, targeted information resource directly relevant to the page ... diametrically different to a generalised and global Google search. The template is relevant to works and authors censored by the Vatican, and the template references, and uses embedded parameters to restrict the results to Vatican-censored sources (this is NOT a site-search). A Google search for "John Smith" provides no context and is almost useless. A search for "John Smith" within a directory of brewers, or a list of UK Labour politicians is completely different. I completely fail to understand the rationale behind this discussion: what is the suggested alternative?? delete everything and leave the lines unreferenced???? transclude the template and render the link less comprehensible and more fragile?????? If you can improve the targeting of the links, do so ... it's the WP way. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anything, the links should be in citations, and should link to specific pages like [1], not searches like [2] as at present. Note also that the link in the final rows, for Alberto Moravia, Nikos Kazantzakis and Simone de Beauvoir, return no results. The link for Anatole France reruns 71 results, 70 (98.59!) of which are not for that author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reply. I agree that it would be clearly preferable to directly link to a specific page of results, but the Beacon site only does that for a specific works listing (which can include opera omnia as given in @Pigsonthewing:'s example). They, unfortunately, do not encode the author, so it is not possible (or, perhaps better, I did not see the possibility) of linking to a safe author id. If an author has two or more works on the list, I could not see a way of linking them except through the search on author name. A few extra results may come back on some names (particularly 'France'!) but this is not hard to handle. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2016 (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:German law section

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complex external links template, supporting twenty jurisdictions, but with only five transclusions in all. Documentation is in German. See also Template:§§'s TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe there is something worth merging from this into Template:Cite German law. I agree that Template:§§ seems to be pointless. The discussion at its TfD shows that its code can be replaced with a simple [http://url.goes.here/page Title] link, and it isn't really plausible that someone is going to remember all the parameter quirkiness for several different national jurisdictions – almost all lawyers, legal scholars, and law students (the most likely people to be using such a template) are specialists, not generalists in the legal codes of a swath of countries.

    Back to Template:German law section: It uses code like {{German law section|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ff.}} to generate output like "{{German law section/sandbox|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ''ff.''}}" which can be replaced with [http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/433.html §§ 433 ''ff.''] (about the same length, much much lower operational complexity). So, I guess the question is this: Are there (or will there be) a significant number of editors who know the "BGB", "dejure" and "443 ff." parts (perhaps because they are German lawyers, and/or have a paper book at hand, who do not already have the URL, or cannot more quickly find it than they can assemble this template? I have to think that German Wikipedia has this template for a reason, just like en.wiki has some complicated ones for US, UK, etc., law. That a template is "complicated" to non-experts in the subject matter is not a deletion rationale, especially if it is not complicated to experts who will use it, otherwise we'd delete about 1,000 templates right this second. "Not used much yet" is a weak one as well when the template's documentation hasn't been translated yet, and it was not properly categorized at Category:Europe law templates until just now. I'm not !voting keep because I think the question I asked probably has an answer of "not on English Wikipedia", but that's just an assumption of which I might get disabused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That objection doesn't make sense. When you feed this specific values, what you get is a specific source (like this one from the example above). If you don't feed it specific values, it doesn't do anything useful at all. And I didn't suggest "merg[ing] this complex monstrosity" into the cite template; I said "maybe there is something worth merging from this".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, but as the question was raised, I found the original thread which caused multiple individual templates to be combined into this more generic template ({{:de:Template:§}}) in the German WP a number of years back: de:Portal_Diskussion:Recht/Archiv_2007-III#.C2.A7.C2.A7-Vorlagen People over there found it much more convenient to use than specific templates or even individual links. The template makes it easier to switch between several providers of the legal info, to centrally fix the links if the providers change their link format in the future - as it had happened in the past already, and to reverse-lookup the links if legal changes would require the text to be updated accordingly for correctness. It could also be useful to generate meta data (not checked if the template does this already).
I think, for "more generic external resources" it is generally a good idea to route such links through related templates for maintenance and expandability reasons. Examples: Switch between protocols http://, http:// or //, change Google links to google.com (from google.<other_tld>), adjust the archive.org link format... Things which require a large number of bots edits to adjust otherwise. Even if such templates could never cover all occurences of links in articles, they would still help to reduce the number of places, which would need to be adjusted, significantly.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The five transclusions doesn't bother me as much as it usually would because it's fairly clear this could be used more than it is. This template should be simplified if at all possible, but even as is, I think it's an extremely small simplification of the URL. ~ Rob13Talk 06:03, 11 September 2016 (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).
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 into Template:Rail-interchange. A few points here. First, the keep rationale that policies and guidelines cannot be rationales for deletion must be wholly discounted; of course, consensus is based on policies and guidelines. Second, accessibility issues are strong here, and the WMF's non-discrimination policy requires that we not discriminate on the basis of disabilities. That policy explicitly states it may not be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored" by local actions on individual Wikimedia projects, and so it is one of the strongest possible rationales for doing something on the project. Lastly, the past discussion relating to merging into Template:Rail-interchange demonstrates the community has historically supported merging together templates in this topic area. Altogether, this cobbles together a fairly strong consensus to merge. (Deletion as an outcome unto itself cannot be seriously considered without any explanation of what will happen to existing transclusions.) ~ Rob13Talk 06:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is being used to create bold coloured text within article prose, which is against the manual of style. Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Paul 012: Do you have examples, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending fuller discussion of this entire approach. This particular transit systems's templates shouldn't be singled out. Rather, an RfC at WT:MOS, "advertised" at WT:MOSICONS, WT:MOSACCESS, etc., and the transit-related wikiprojects needs to come to a consensus on whether we ever want to do anything like this at all, including in tables (which is the intent of the templates, and needs to be better documented in that regard – it says not to use them in running prose, but not where to use them). We've been over essentially the same issue several times before, e.g. with regard to people using US highway sign icons in running prose, and consequent attempts to delete the templates entirely (but with the result that they have largely been constrained to tables, navboxes, infoboxes, and other tabular presentations, much like flag icon templates, which is of course the motherlode of such long-running "providing extra visual information vs. just damned decorating" debates. Regardless of that eventual RfC (which honestly I think should be started immediately, and include more than just these templates, but any similar ones for other transit systems), two of the output options of this template are WP:ACCESS failures: The text output for both {{BTS line links|Sukhumvit}} and {{BTS line links|BRT}} has to be changed to black, because the white-on-pale-color output ({{BTS line links|BRT}}) has insufficient contrast. Also, the template's |2= parameter and what it does has to be documented; it clearly does change the output in the table of examples, but to what end is unclear. Anyway, that the template is occasionally being misused (assuming its actually intended use is legit) is not a deletion rationale. Even rampant misuse is often treated as not a deletion rationale, as I've learned the hard way in trying to get rid of the pull quote templates, about 99.8% of the uses of which are MoS-violating and policy-violating, PoV-pushing abuses of it – more than 100,000 examples of it to date, probably the largest anti-WP:CCPOL memetic cancer in Wikipedia. If that problem isn't enough for TfD to act on, then this isn't certainly isn't, without a clearer consensus what to do about the desire to colorize transit-line names in tables. I suspect the answer will be the same as it is for sports teams and universities: Do not apply "livery" colors except in places that already serve a partially decorative function, like infoboxes and navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the nomination doesn't actually explain why the template isn't useful or needs to be deleted apart from just "it's against the rules!", which by itself isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Considering that Bangkok's rail lines are often associated with their colours, the template makes it easy to identify the lines as opposed to just plain text links - example. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not actually true at all. Failure to comply with guidelines or policies is sufficient reason for deletion. WP:IAR does not and never has meant "rules are ignored by default" or "ignore any rule you don't like", it means "ignore a rule in a particular circumstance if doing so is required to improve the encyclopedia", and no such case has been made here (meanwhile the accessibility problems with it are a case in the other direction).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2016 (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:Family Feud

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 keep, but restructure Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding consensus not to include cast and crew in navboxes. What's left after doesn't contain enough links to warrant a navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if removing all the links kills the template, why not just leave it like it is. It's a fine map to the subject, it is not very large, and it contains information readers would be looking for. So, where in our guidelines or policies is this consensus you keep alluding to? If a policy was made which results in taking the meaning out of templates such as this one, perhaps you can point to the policy or guideline which okays such wholesale destruction. Randy Kryn 4:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not been codified into guidelines yet, but there's this discussion from a long while back, and here are a few recent deletion discussions... Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11#Template:Celebrity Big Brother, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11#Template:The Surreal Life, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Template:They Think It's All Over, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#Template:Co-hosts of The View, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Template:Loose Women, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Template:This Morning. There are plenty more. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is used to navigate between the different versions and not between the cast and crew, then I have no problem with this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2016 (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:Yeshiva site

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two transclusions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with a deletion. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, I replaced the two trancslusions. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes Thanks, but you really should have awaited the outcome of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the second one was creating a self-link, and the only way to fix it was by replacing them template. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2016 (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:Phototrans

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two transclusions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 2 September 2016 (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:Delhi Assemblies

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 don't merge ~ Rob13Talk 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Delhi Assemblies with Template:Delhi elections.
The newly created "Delhi Assemblies" template is unnecessary when all the concern and related info can easily be accommodated in "Delhi elections" template. I see no reason for having a separate template for assemblies that are formed as a result of these elections. The new template was created as a solution to dispute at "Delhi elections" template. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bad faith nomination; election templates are not the right place for assemblies to be listed, particularly when the election template covers elections to more than one body (in this case three). Usual practice is to have a separate template for the different parliaments; e.g. {{Parliament of India}} has the individual parliaments listed, whilst the elections are on {{Indian elections}}. Number 57 11:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: You offer no evidence that this a "bad faith" nomination, rather than simply a disagreement over how the content should be presented, Please remember that you are required to assume good faith in the absence of clear evidence otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's quite obvious isn't it? Number 57 12:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's obvious is WP:OWN and WP:STICK. You haven't present any rational reasons yet other than WP:OSE. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure how WP:STICK applies, and as has been pointed out to you on the template's talk page, WP:OSE is a perfectly valid argument when seeking consistency ("When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes"). But anyway, the (now renamed) {{Delhi Legislative Assembly}} template has been expanded to contain the Assembly constituencies, which aren't appropriate for the elections template either. Number 57 12:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure why newly added constituencies, elections and assemblies can't all sit in one template. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because the elections template isn't just for the Legislative Assembly; it also covers the Metropolitan Council and (national) General elections in the city. Number 57 11:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Metropolitan Council was a precursor to Legislative Assembly. Had there been more different pages present related to this MC, we would have had those also in this template. All articles related to elections; be it the year-wise article, the results of the elections, the constituencies in which these elections were held can all sit up in one template without any harm to any of the articles. We still await a rationale reason from you as to why it should not be done so. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We? How many people are editing from this IP? And I've already pointed out that this is a consistency issue – assemblies and constituencies cannot be accommodated on these templates as in many cases it would make them completely unusable. Number 57 10:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We as in he Wikipedia community of logged in-logged out editors and readers who are seeing this. On a state-level the articles covered in a combined template is very much less and I don't see how it would be completely unusable. Someone reading a page on constituency can easily go to a particular year's election and then go the assembly formed that year after and so on. Is there any policy/guideline on limits of articles to be included in a template? 14.141.141.26 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So you actually meant yourself. There is no limit as far as I'm aware, but there would be issue of accessibility if there were too many links in the template to make it an effective navigation tool. But anyway, the consistency argument is the key point here. Number 57 11:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your only argument is that its not been done before and should never ever be done again. Has there been consensus on never ever doing this? If there is no set limit, accessibility is also a pseudo problem them. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall if it's been discussed, but the reasons why it hasn't been done before is reasonably obvious (however, if you're seeking confirmation of this approach, I'll invite @Nightstallion: to comment, as they are also involved in creating/editing/maintaining these templates). And just because there's no limit on size doesn't mean that practically it's a very bad idea to have enormous templates. Number 57 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • no need to merge, I see no overlap in links within the two navboxes. unless I am missing something. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2016 (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:Central Coast Mariners FC W-League 2008-09 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 delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per general consensus, squad templates are not used for past seasons, but only the latest squad. Hence the reason Template:Football squad uses the wording "current squad". Secret Agent Julio (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2016 (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/2016_September_2&oldid=1122243302"