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).
Keep I have extensive knowledge of the sport of soccer. Its kind of a passion of mine. A template for candidates (which is what these stadiums are... they are candidate stadiums) is not prematures in my view. It may be 8 years away, but sixteen stadiums will be selected in 2020. When that happens, the template can be shortened. The stadiums that don't make the cut can be removed from the template and it can be modified to reflect the final decision in regard to which stadiums get used. The three stadiums in Canada and the three in Mexico are shoe-ins at this point. Seven of the proposed US cities won't make the cut however. --MusicAndArtFan (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The template is being added unsourced to many articles. Without reliable sources confirming that these venues will be used in the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the template is original research and misleading. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely Too Soon, and also Crystal Balling. Just because the OP has "extensive knowledge of the sport of soccer" doesn't mean they can't be patient. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2018 (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).
Whether or not those entries are in another navbox or not has no relevance here. There is no reason why they can't be in both (I would support this).
I am disappointed to see many of the keep !votes here being on the basis of also removing them from the main incumbent 45 navbox. That's not what I'm voting for, certainly.
However, there is a population of article centred on protests against this president - those articles have no call for a full blown navbox, with lists of everything in it. Just on the basis of those, that's enough reason to keep this navbox. This isn't a discussion on whether some more adulatory articles need to use it or not, and whether the major protests should also appear in such an overall navbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about what Andy has posted here, I hadn't really considered the fact that duplication isn't a problem since both navboxes shouldn't be used at the same time. I'm going to amend my vote... nagualdesign01:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the laundry list of protests from the presidency navbox; just keep a few notable protests there, and link to the full list. — JFGtalk16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we're finally addressing the redundancy between these two templates. I support either keeping the protest template, or merging them all into the presidency template and perhaps collapsing sections so the template does not become too large. Either way, the protest articles should be kept grouped together. ---Another Believer(Talk)23:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this navbox, remove most entries from presidency navbox. Possibly expand this one to also include the pro-Trump gatherings. There are a good number of these articles and an individual navbox works best for navigation purposes.LM2000 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remove all protests, for and against, from the presidency navbar and sidebar – I'm not sure public reactions belong to a series of articles on a presidency. I attempted to look at what we do with past POTUSes but Trump is the only POTUS that the public cares about throughout the entirety of his presidency (the public only voiced opinions on Bush during the Iraq War, and I'm not sure if Obama was ever relevant enough in public opinion to have notable demonstrations for/against him or other ways of the public voicing opinions about him). wumbolo^^^20:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand remove all protests and demonstrations from {{Trump presidency}}, which is more focussed on his own actions during his presidency, and create another footer for pro-Trump demonstrations. and include a note at {{Protests against Trump footer}} reminding editors not to use both footers simultaneously to avoid unnecessary duplication. nagualdesign01:05, 16 July 2018 (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).
Not updated. Actually, template is not needed for most players of the team don't have articles, which makes this template a red-linked one. The only blue links are those of the coaches. A former discussion of a similar template is found here. Babymissfortune05:44, 13 July 2018 (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).
