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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template was previously nominated with a no consensus result, but it continues to be unsourced and not useful. It is a collection of mostly permanent redlinks (because the league was not fully-pro most players are not-notable) and is missing many additional redlinks due to lack of sourcing. There is no precedent at WP:FOOTY for creating this type of navigation box either. Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a nearly identical template which should be deleted for the same reasons. Jogurney (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we do not keep such historical rosters of players in templates. GiantSnowman 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
This template provides no real benefit. It is a collection of images. It is used on only two articles. It also provides bad flexibility to format articles due to its lengthy spatial size and that it's spread out. Cold Season (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The images are substituted [1][2]. The images' source is left out, since that belongs in its commons page. --Cold Season (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Larissa F.C. squad, no consensus for AEL 1964 F.C. squad, but feel free to renominate it if you still would like to have it deleted. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The professional club was dissolved. Alex (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete Template:Larissa F.C. squad as a duplicate but keep Template:AEL 1964 F.C. squad - the fact it no longer is a fully-professional team does not matter - we have other templates on semi-pro/amateur teams. What does matter is that this template navigates between a large number of notable articles. GiantSnowman 14:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed from templates players, who are not in the team anymore (I checked at transfermarkt). As you can see, there are only 3 players left in the template. To keep the template, it should be updated firstly (because in such form this template is needless for wikipedia), but as the template is not even used in article about this football club, I think noone was going to update it, thats why I nominated for deletion both templates. PS: If delete only one, I think Template:Larissa F.C. squad should be kept (and renamed) because it was created earlier. Alex (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you should also update AEL 1964 FC#Current squad, which claims to have been updated (no reference) earlier this month with over a dozen bluelinks. It is also worth noting Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 16:27, 16 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
it doesn't do anything that plain text can't do Lady Lotus (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is indeed some conditional logic in this template and it is intended that this template emit microdata. Technical 13 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was intended to. Either way -- It now emits microdata. Technical 13 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 3500 pages linked to it. If you can unhook all ofv them, come back and we can talk again.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 13:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The correct method would be to determine if there is consensus to delete, and if so, then run a bot/ AWB assisted task to replace or SUBST: each instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I think Gaarmyvet was joking... GiantSnowman 15:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it does do more than plain text. GiantSnowman 13:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's still a template. GiantSnowman 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doing it in plaintext is cumbersome. --bender235 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It distinguishes between John Smith (1800-1900) born in 1800 and John Smith (m. 1800-1900) married in 1800 in the infoboxes. People have not been formatting marriages properly so that the years of birth and death looked the same as the years of marriage in the infobox. Sometimes only one or the other were included and it was not clear which one it was. By having a template we can change all the marriages to a new format, if we decide to one day, such as John Smith (married 1800-1900) or something else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful in the infobox. --Bobak (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed useful. Ziyalistix (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has manifested itself on numerous BLPs, totally confusing the casual Wikipedia reader who wouldn't know what a template was, let alone how you'd nominate one for deletion. If it really, really, really serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, redirect it to a parent template. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above comments.--Jionpedia✉ 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close Per WP:SNOW and to clear up all the inline notices in infoboxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A nice little (since the extras were chopped out) template which serves a useful purpose.--Aurictalk 19:21, 17 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Only needs transcluding at 1 or 2 locations, no need for a template for this. I'm pretty sure simialr tables have come to TFD and been deleted before but I can't remember exactly which ones/when, though I'm sure somebody else would be able to assist... GiantSnowman 11:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:43, 16 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Band nav templates that links between just three articles - one on the band itself, and two on notable members. The two album articles have been redirected (by myself) to the band article as they do not appear notable. GiantSnowman 10:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, now well connected by the band article. Frietjes (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Used only on two "luxury" olive oils originating from same place, appears to be used solely as a promotional tool. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not necessary. We already have info boxes for companies, prepared foods, and {{Infobox olive cultivar}} for actual kinds of olives. Steven Walling • talk 15:51, 16 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deprecate and replace. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for the 3rd time 'cos an admin misconstruing policy (the first time) and conjuring policy out of their arse (the 2nd time) won't let the Tfd run. I'm not tagging it 'cos they threatened to fully protect it (lol). — Lfdder (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I think the last closure is a misinterpretation of policy. Per WP:RS Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and this is exactly what this template does. Instead we should perform talk page attribution, which is exactly the same as how split articles are attributed, using the {{copied}}or{{splitfrom}}/{{split-to}} templates. We should instead convert all instances of this article template into the talk page template{{translated}}. Talk page attribution is a common and proper way to attribute Wikipedia sources, as commonly used throughout Wikipedia, including history subpages, which contain edit histories. Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source, so if any sources from the non-English page's references were not copied over, then all the statements that use that reference remain unsourced (WP:V). -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link to the previous nomination, for those who missed it (like me). The closing admin's rationale was that "we need to maintain attribution" (true) and "simply putting a note on the talk page won't suffice" (dubious, where is the evidence that such a policy exists?).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
deprecate and replace with {{iw-ref}} where possible until a plan can be made for removing {{iw-ref}} (which has over 10 times the number of transclusions). Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate and replace per Frietjes, it seems like the least disruptive way to remove it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Propose mergingTemplate:X-Men film series with Template:X-Men media.
I'm posting this here since the talks in the template pages have only had one person respond so far. As I have stated in the talk pages for both templates, the X-Men film series template is rather messy, and, should you take out the overly large character list that includes every character from the films irregardless of role size (which also has the potential to get much much larger should the movies continue), just about everything else in the template is covered in the media or main X-Men template, which makes it rather redundant, which is a bit of a no-no as I understand it. I know that there are other comic film series' that have their own templates, but those templates have a large variety of information in those templates that allow them to stand on their own from others, while the X-Men one is covered almost entirely in two other templates. I'm proposing to merge the film template into the media one by creating one single link in the film section of the media template that leads directly to the wiki page that lists the film characters instead of listing them all in the template itself, and moving the soundtrack for X3, which is the only other thing not in another template, next to the movie link in the media template as well. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose X-Men media is already too large, and should be cut down and Split. It should be split into an X-Men video games template and an X-Men television template. The X-men media template should be a meta-template that transcludes the film/TV/videogame templates instead, and the specific TV/film/game template should be used on the specific film/TV/videogame articles, while the media template is only used on general X-Men articles. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MergeTemplate:X-Men film seriestoTemplate:X-Men media. Much of the current content of the film series template is a list of character that is non-exclusive to the films and a list of film-related videogames. I think one centralized template for X-Men media would serve better than an entire group of templates. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The media template is way too large to be even remotely readable. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? I see a multitude of templates around this site that are WAY bigger than the media template, which is laid out pretty clearly that anyone can read. And why are people acting like I'm want to add the whole film series template into the media one? I don't. I said it clearly that I will add a total of two small things into the media template, because everything else is already covered in the media template or main X-Men template. It will NOT create any significant size difference to the media template.68.33.142.75 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, perhaps introducing ability to expand/select parts -PC-XT+ 05:44, 16 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Unsued and with all redlink... Stigni (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is one blue link, and there is enormous potential here. I see the possibility of meaningful articles on all these topics, and this template encourages editors to seize the opportunity and write some of the articles. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps userfy if someone wants to fill in the red links, then reintroduce the template, otherwise delete as redundant to the category per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 05:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. It meets the rule of three blue links, but they don't go to things directly related to the topic.
Delete - currently serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 16:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is, it's useless for navigation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment whatever happens, these two templates need to be converted over to {{infobox}} format. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, now merged. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
A template with links to different department of the club. As only two of the links are blue links, I don't think it is enough links between related article to provide useful navigation. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are the same templates for all the greek multi-sports clubs. The links will converted to blue in the short future. --Odythal (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for comments to avoid in deletion discussions. That the links will be blue in the future is not a reason to keep this template, as templates are made to navigate between existing articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"templates are made to navigate between existing articles"
I disagree. I believe templates can also provide information about the topic, even if some of the articles are missing. A template with redlinks also encourages editors to work on the associated articles - it draws attention to problem areas. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Userfy if someone wants to fill in the red links, otherwise navboxes should not have redlinks as a general rule -PC-XT+ 05:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, delete if the redlinks are not notable -PC-XT+ 05:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is unlikely the remaining redlinks, if they ever are created, will be independently notable from the main sports club. This template therefore serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 10:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't make the general rule of three blue links. Technical 13 (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only three articles for this topic, and only two links on this template -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
