Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 23

September 23

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 October 4. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 October 4. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 11:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 October 4. (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 October 4. (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 03:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of this template is redundant since Template:ONGovDept already includes a comprehensive list of provincial Crown agencies and Crown corporations. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (creator of template) Daylen (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Meta country at games navboxes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full list

These templates (87 in total) are simply wrappers for {{country at games navbox}}. The main template updates automatically, meaning each of these templates are just shells. Another reason is to prevent the unnecessary creation of these templates, as demonstrated by the deletion of 20 similar unused templates. As a note, while I am advocating for deletion of these templates, obviously they should be subst'ed/replaced to keep the information itself on the page (which I'm happy to do). Primefac (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:FOOTY consensus, we only have historical squad navboxes for international tournaments, not for club competitions. Jellyman (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per prior consensus we don't need roster boxes for teams that didn't medal in the competition. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, navbox creep. We don't need a squad template for every team in every competition. That would cause an explosion at the bottom of articles for players with a long career. If someone wants to know who was on which squad, we can put that in the articles. The standard bar for a squad navbox is if it is a championship team for a significant competition. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per prior consensus we don't need roster boxes for teams that didn't medal in the competition. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per prior consensus we don't need roster boxes for teams that didn't medal in the competition. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Cyp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates the function of Template:Million-plus agglomerations in India. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 15:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Use {{Hull & Barnsley Railway}} instead. Jc86035 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).