Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Template:Bakersfield Blaze roster[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) Primefac (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template should be deleted because it is a roster for a baseball team has become defunct. Subsequently, the template is no longer used. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, team is defunct, so there is no current roster. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 22 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:Michael Paynter[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) Primefac (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we can connect three articles through standard in-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 23 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:Current TNA Champions[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) Primefac (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this template for deletion because...well, it has the same issues like the current WWE Champions:
1. A template listing all the current champs is not helpful at all.
2. The current champions template will have to be updated every time there is a title switch.
3. It will also have to be removed from the one wrestler's article and added to the new champ.
It's a maintenance horror and the reason we chose not to list the current champion in the navbox a long time ago. Nickag989talk 08:57, 20 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:PlanetMath[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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:PlanetMath with Template:PlanetMath reference.
My merge of these templates, which link to the same target website, has been reverted. Having all transclusions use a version which wraps {{Cite web}} makes the latter's benefits (including error checking and categorisation; and use of COinS) available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is a problem it that the two templates are used in different context. {{PlanetMath}} is intended for external links sections an styled accordingly
Gamma Function at PlanetMath.org.
{{PlanetMath reference}} is for a reference using CS1 reference style.
"Gamma Function". PlanetMath.
The reference format does not really work external links sections. See Aristotle#External links to see how the style matches styles for other sources. --Salix alba (talk): 14:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
We have plenty of templates that are used in both of those contexts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Salix Alba - the "reference" format is not ideal for external links sections, and does not match other external links. On the other hand, PlanetMath is not a very good reference, and should only be used as such in unusual circumstances (better references are published books and papers). There is no reason to general reference data (e.g COINS) for external links, which after all are not references. So I would oppose the merger. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • COinS is not "general reference data"; it is bibliographic data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is not needed when the goal is to insert a web link, rather than a printed reference. COINS is general reference data - it is general data about references - but external links are not references. Similarly, there is little need for "error checking" and "categorization" for external links; the "what links here" already shows which articles use the PlanetMath template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still wrong: COinS is not "general reference data"; it is for data about bibliographic objects, in any context. You are welcome to point to any limitation in its specification, restricting its use to references only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two templates have different sets of parameters for good reasons: in an external links section, the extra bibliographic cruft should be minimized, so the extlink template (planetmath) only parameterizes the url and title of the link, while the template intended to be used in a references section (planetmath reference) includes other information that should be included in a references section (author, version, and access date) but should not be included in an external links section. Merging the two templates would encourage editors to fill out all the parameters in all uses, a bad idea that having separate templates would help us avoid. For the same reason, contra Pigs, cOiNs data (or hOwEvEr it is supposed to be capitalized) is claimed to be useful in references (although I have never actually seen a use for it) but completely unnecessary cruft in external links. So Pigs' changes to the planetmath template to make it use a citation template, generate CoInS, and add an accessdate parameter should all also be reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My name remains "Andy". COinS is capitalised, correctly, exactly as I wrote it, and as can be seen in the article to which I linked the first time I did so. Your "would encourage editors to fill out all the parameters" claim is FUD, with no evidence whatsoever, as is your "unnecessary cruft" claim about COinS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no need I can see for access dates on external links (which are not references), as far as I can see, and having a parameter for them does seem to just encourage editors or bots to try to fill it in. I'd rather have separate templates for separate tasks: reference templates for references, external links templates for external links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused. Wait, what? Back in the day, the difference between these two was that one was simply a reference, and the other was an attribution: it was worded something like "This article contains material copied from planetmath article blah, according to the license blah-blah". What happened to the attribution? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I see I was thinking of Template:PlanetMath attribution. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:40, 18 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) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see compelling arguments in all three oppose opinions above and it seems there is clear consensus against merging. Now, an alternative would be to still merge them but have the type of output (citation vs.external link) be governed by a parameter, but that seems like it will make the templates less easy to use. Uanfala (talk) 08:14, 21 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:Interlinear[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 redirect to {{bible verse}}. The consensus seems to be that these individual templates could be better served by a central template, which would (ideally) point towards Wikisource. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single-site Bible link templates. Redundant to {{Bible verse}}, which offers a neutral lookup service. {{Bible chapter}}, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment {{Bible chapter}} is an infobox template and therefore quite a different beast, but {{Bible verse}} looks like a template that could be extended with the functionality of {{interlinear}}. Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these look like they could easily be incorporated into {{Bible verse}}. However, given how (potentially) widely used some can be, I'm wondering if won't make sense to keep them as specific wrapper templates (for example, {{Niv}} could be used as a shortcut for {{Bible verse||NIV}}). I'm thinking otherwise only for {{Interlinear}}, whose title I'd really want to usurp for a much more general (but unrelated) template for formatting interlinear glosses. Uanfala (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the wrapper idea, it'd be easier to use these than have to use an extra parameter for the version.--JFH (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have just added {{Rsv}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why are they sending traffic off-wiki? Wikisource has plenty of versions, s:Bible. Rewrite to use Wikisource. Cabayi (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be an issue for the talk page of {{Bible verse}}, once the nominated templates are deleted and replaced with (or redirected to, if we must) that one. Or indeed now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{bible verse}} is not so easy to change because it uses a tool that is not being maintained. The template should be rewritten without the tool, but that will be very difficult because the tool did a lot of work to get a wide range of reference styles to link. There are similar problems with changing {{bibleref2}} to point to Wikisource: it is designed to point to BibleGateway, which uses certain abbreviations and reference styles. I think right now it might be a good idea to keep {{KJV}} and point it to Wikisource. Similarly, {{Esv}} could point to http://www.esvbible.org/ while {{Niv}} and {{Nasb}} could point to http://www.biblica.com/ as these have much fewer ads than BibleGateway.--JFH (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{KJV}} and rewrite for Wikisource. Neutral on the others. They could be rewritten for better sites than Bible gateway if kept, but they aren't versions of the Bible that need to be used frequently on Wikipedia. --JFH (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a bit more comment on the WikiSource idea and how that relates to merges into Template:Bible verse.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with merging to {{Bible verse}} is that it uses a Tool Labs tool, but the maintainer is no longer active. The tool allows people to use a wide variety of abbreviations and reference styles. I am not capable of rewriting {{Bible verse}} to make it do what the tool did without breaking some of the thousands of transclusions. For that reason, I recommend we rewrite {{Kjv}} so that going forward users have an easy way to link the Wikisource KJV. I have written a KJV Wikisource template in the sandbox. The sandbox specifies book, chapter, and verse as separate parameters. I think this is a better approach because it will allow easy changes to the template to adapt to a change in the Wikisource reference style or a different website if we need to do that in the future. I can go through and fix the existing transclusions of {{Kjv}} --JFH (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would just be easier to delete all of these, including {{Kjv}} and {{Bible verse}} and then provide external links to the various related websites. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:41, 26 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:Subst2[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) Primefac (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard user warning template without "uw-" in the name which is redundant to the correctly-named Template:Uw-subst. Refers to a template name that has not been used since 2007 as an example. Pppery 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although I would have thought that this was certainly a T3 (duplicate) speedy candidate. MSJapan (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Uw-subst and keep as a redirect with history as it was created a year before the target. Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 18 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) 04:55, 20 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:Signposts[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 redirect to {{uw-tilde}} (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non-standard user warning Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: What does non-standard mean? Hyacinth (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and redirect to {{uw-tilde}} to which it is redundant (unless a need is demonstrated for the brevity in the message). It would then be an {{R with history}} so I'd oppose deletion. Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template has only 20 transclusions. It would be better to Subst: them - thereby preserving the content of signed talk page messages which include them - than to maintain a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, given that this template contains a (user) talk page message and is hence of the kind that is supposed to be substed, I don't see the transclusion count as a relevant metric. Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • All the more reason to substitute, rather than maintaining a redirect, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah yes, updating my !vote above. The reason for redirecting is to a) have a sensibly named alternative to typing uw-tilde; b) let editors who've used before still be able to use it; c) preserve its history. Uanfala (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 20 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:Newbie-biting[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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard user-warning. Contains cultural reference that may not make sense to the reader. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Harmless and humorous template to remind people not to bite Newbies. WCMemail 14:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are a prior TFD in May 2012. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nomination; as well, it has few uses and duplicates the standard user warning set. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Only 14 transclusions, which should be Subst: - thereby preserving the content of signed talk page messages which include them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's charming and directs users to an extremely well-written, important guideline. Really, go read it (again)! A parameter that removes/replaces the "cultural reference that may not make sense to the reader" would be welcome (and/or documentation informing would-be users of an alternative template), but I see no sound justification for outright deletion. --Elvey(t•c) 18:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template(s) to which this one is redundant ({{Uw-bite}}, for example) also link to that guideline. It would be pointless to undertake additional work to add coding to this template, to make it even more like those templates. The fact that the string ""Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans"" occurs only seven times on user talk pages (less than four for each person saying "keep" here; and some of those are not actually warnings, but meta discussion) shows a - welcome - lack of community uptake of this template. It also appears that the template has not been used since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wee Curry Monster, whose argument is three-fold: 1. harmless 2. Humorous, which is good 3. reminds editors not to bite newbies, and that is very good. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If someone were to post this on my talk page, even though I know the quote I don't think I would immediately figure out what they meant. Basically, it's cute but almost forces the reader to follow the links to get to the point. Humorous? Sure. A duplicate of {{uw-bite}}? Yup. Necessary? No. Primefac (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to {{uw-bite}} per Primefac - it is confusing to many people reading it. Additionally, the template name does not suggest that is a humorous alternate, which could potentially be used by mistake. Pppery 00:17, 8 October 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:Cite-WCED[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 This discussion highlights that this template duplicates functionality and is used very little. Potential use has been outweighed by time. The spirit also behind T3 is that duplication is to be avoided. Also, just because other things exist, doesn't mean we keep them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This a specific-source template that produces citations to an online Cebuano language dictionary. We normally have such templates for authoritative dictionaries of major languages, so I'd say keep unless presented with evidence for this specific source's unreliability. Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain why we need such a template for a single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we only went by how often something was used, then any template with a "single use" would get deleted by a bot and we wouldn't need to be wasting our time here. I think I've given enough evidence why we generally want that kind of template and I'd support deletion only if there's anything wrong with this particular one. And all that is a question of potential for use, rather than what happens to be the actual use at this point in time. Or is there something I'm fundamentally misunderstanding about TfD? Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only use of this template on Wikipedia is on Leucaena leucocephala, where it is in:

[[Cebuano language|Cebuano]]: ''byatilis'' or ''luyluy''<ref name=WCED>{{cite-WCED}}</ref>

which citation renders as:

Wolff, John U. (1972). A Dictionary of Cebuano Visayan.

The only other mention of "Dictionary of Cebuano Visayan" in the whole of Wikipedia is an 'External links' entry in Cebuano language, which reads:

and which is thus not suitable to use the template. We cite thousands of books, many more than once, with no need for a dedicated template for each. I ask again: "Please explain why we need such a template for a single use"? More specifically, please explain why we need this template for this single use? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking in circles. It's not about this single use, but for its potential for use. And unlike most of the thousands of books that get cited and that are only relevant in a narrow subject niche, a reference dictionary of a major language has a wide sphere of possible use (think of all the place names, items of cultural significance, personal names, titles of films books and songs.. – and all that has to do with an area that we're yet to see the greatest expansion of content). Uanfala (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking past you at all. We generally don't keep unused or single-use templates on the basis of some hypothetical potential for use. Even if we did, such potential doesn't seem to exist, given the evidence I presented above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, it seems that we take "potential" to mean two different things: for you it seems to be only about the already existing citations, for me it has to do with the likelihood of such citations appearing in the future. I've tried to argue that this likelihood is high, please let me know if you disagree with that of if you have reasons to believe this wider potential should be ignored. Uanfala (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You now attempt to dismiss my argument by implying that the meaning I've used is questionable: that's bullshit. I'm fully aware that you have tried to argue that the likelihood to which you refer is high; but your argument, while verbose, consists merely of assertion, and irrelevance such as page counts of this and other sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to dismiss the interpretations that you use, I was just trying to articulate what I see as the reason why no discussion is happening despite all the writing, here and in the previous similar TfDs. If you have reasons to disagree with my interpretation of "likelihood of use", you're welcome to give them. As for the "assertions" in my argument, which ones don't you agree with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eligible for WP:T3 even. ~ Rob13Talk 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BU Rob13, if it's eligible for T3, then which template is it a duplication or a hardcoded instance of? Uanfala (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: Check the source code. It's quite plainly a hardcoded instance of {{Cite web}}. ~ Rob13Talk 04:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13:, it's {{cite book}}. But if that were an argument for deletion, we would then need to also wipe out all the other specific-source templates (and there are over a thousand of them, and many are very widely used). Uanfala (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a single-use wrapper for {{Cite book}}, with no evidence for its potential further use. You have yet to explain why we need such a template for a single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if I hadn't explained clearly enough: I've given what I see as evidence for potential use in the discussion above [1] and [2]. Let me know if you disagree with any of the points raised. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note My keep !vote above was contingent on this dictionary's suitability as a reference. Now I've had a look at the Cebuano-English dictionaries, and Wolff's dictionary (the one this template formats a citation for) has more than twice as many pages as the next best two: Yap's and Ruyter's. This suggests that it's probably the most comprehensive one out there, add to that its handy online interface and I think this is the Cebuano dictionary that is most likely to be cited here.
  • I realise now there's something I've been taking for granted as general knowledge but that maybe not everyone is aware of. Templates for such online versions of dictionaries save a lot of the fuss of creating the citation. With most other sources you could easily get your bibliography management software to import the citation at the same time as you get the resource (from a library catalogue, jstor etc) and then export that citation (together with other citations) into the generic wikipedia templates. Here on the other hand, the online interface doesn't have a handy "get Bibtex" link, nor does it contain the full bibliographic details, so creating the citation would involve additional searching through catalogues as well as filling out the "url" bit of {{cite encyclopedia}} by hand, and all that put together is a very tedious chore that templates like this one are designed to prevent. Uanfala (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala - potential; tedium avoidance.--Elvey(t•c) 22:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for the title shows that those two pages are the only ones even referencing the Dictionary. This template was created six years ago. If there are a grand total of two pages even mentioning the book after all this time, I'm pretty sure we can discount the "potential" for use as a reference. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I guess most editors don't cite dictionaries because they find the information too trivial to be worth the relatively greater effort it takes to format the dictionary citation. The existence of the template encourages editors to provide references. As the only reason given for deleting the template was the fact that it wasn't used, I took the liberty of going ahead and introducing it in ten articles. [3] Uanfala (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better to use a standard citation template which allows for more targeted linking, this one has only one URL possible, contrary to the documentation. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now fixed the issue with the urls, so the same targeted linking is possible as with {{cite encyclopedia}}. Does that change your mind, Frietjes? Uanfala (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • no, now it's even worse since the url parameter can be anything. entirely pointless. for wakwak, the url should be automatically generated as http://bohol.ph/wced.php?sw=wakwak&lang=All and not require the user to specify it, or provide some entirely incorrect link. Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see, this could be done, although I'm not sure if it's good to link to search results like that, and there's no way that I can see for linking to individual entries. But if one is found (or developed on the website), we could adjust the template to link to specific headwords. If we used the general citation template instead we wouldn't be able to do that and the problems with the url parameter being potentially anything are the same. Unless there's something I'm missing? Uanfala (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frietjes and others. (In the long-term, Wikidata might provide the best solution for centralised curation of citations, but that's a whole new discussion.) --NSH002 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frietjes, NSH002, I'm left with the feeling there's something obvious out there that I'm not getting. How will using the generic {{cite encyclopedia}} help with the url issues? I thought this was what specific source templates like this one were there for: the decision about the url format (and we're seeing this is a tricky one) can be made in one place and editors citing the source won't need to rethink that in each separate occasion. And if the website changes its url format, or another website starts providing the same data in a better way (as often happens with reference dictionaries), then the urls can be updated with a single edit to the template. What am I missing? Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you an example:
  • {{cite-WCED|nangka}} gives {{cite-WCED|nangka}}
  • {{cite encyclopedia}} (view source to see params) gives Wolff, John U. "Nangka". John U. Wolff's Cebuano-English Dictionary. p. 698.
I don't know about you, but getting the actual URL is kind of nice, and copy/pasting the exact URL means the next person is more likely to find it (plus, the extra information allows for finding it should the URL change). The extra stuff like page numbers are just icing on the cake. Primefac (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Primefac for the example. However, I still feel like I'm not getting it. The same url can be added with either template, and I'm not sure I'm able to see why this code:
{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://seapdatapapers.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=seap&cc=seap&idno=seap085b&node=seap085b%3A11&view=image&seq=168&size=200|last=Wolff|first=John U.|encyclopedia=John U. Wolff's Cebuano-English Dictionary|title=Nangka|pages=698}}
is superior to that one:
{{cite-WCED|nangka|url=http://seapdatapapers.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=seap&cc=seap&idno=seap085b&node=seap085b%3A11&view=image&seq=168&size=200}}
As for the page numbers, if a specific dictionary entry is cited, they aren't needed as the dictionary is in alphabetical order and the headword itself defines the location. But if wanted, page numbers could easily be added to the template. Uanfala (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness I did not see your change to the template to allow custom URLs, but if a URL isn't given then the template is worthless (as stated/shown multiple times above). {{cite encyclopedia}} is simply more robust, and the more modifications you make to {{cite-WCED}} the more and more it does become a straight-up hardcoded instance of the former. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there is an url in all cases: if it isn't supplied by the editor, a default link will be created to the web interface. I'm not sure I understand why more specific URL handling would be needed at this stage. There are widely used specific source templates out there that don't do that at all, like {{Cite DCB}}. I'm still not getting the whole point.

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm getting hung up on this little template, but it's not just about that. I regularly use, and occasionally create such templates and if my opinion in this discussion is at such variance with that of everybody else then there probably is something I've been doing wrong all this time. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 9 October 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:Cite within[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. As mentioned below, any functionality not already duplicated by existing templates could (if there was interest) be introduced into them. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first sight (which probably took me more time than it took the nominator to nominate) it appears useful. So unless demonstrated otherwise, I'd stick with keeping and possibly publicising so that the template could get used.
    On a side note, I can't help thinking that if there's anything wrong with TfD it is that people make one-word nominations and then get touchy when others aren't convinced. Uanfala (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way does this unused - despite having existed for four years - template "appear", to you to be "useful"? Without evidence, your comment appears to be no more than WP:ILIKEIT. Your comment is also unnecessarily personal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies if what I said seemed personal, I was intending it more as a (unnecessarily, I admit) bitey remark about a certain style of TfD nominations. To answer your question: the template allows for the formatting and markup of a sequence of quotes (from different locations) of a single source and this is functionality I haven't seen in any of the other citations templates I've used. On a side note, now that the question of evidence is on the table, who should the burden of providing it fall on? From what I'm used to seeing, the editor nominating something for deletion is expected to make a case why that should be deleted in the first place. And for all I know, "unused" doesn't go much near being a sufficient rationale. Uanfala (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies accepted. There is plenty of precedence for old, unused templates being deleted; even with a (perfectly-acceptable and factual) single-word rationale of "unused". Since a negative cannot be proved, it is for anyone claiming the positive (on his case, "this is useful") to furnish proof. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, we aren't swimming in a sea of extensional semantics but we're trying to figure out people could conceivably intend to do with things. A negative is then as easy to demonstrate as a positive. If there's a tradition of deleting unused templates, then it doesn't seem to have made its way into WP:TFD#REASONS. Anyway, if a template serves a sensible purpose and is documented, then the fact that it's potentially useful is obvious whereas the proposition that makes a stronger claim and hence would need to be demonstrated is the one for deletion. And that could happen imho if this template's function is performed better by a different template (or by not using a template). Is that the case? Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:TFD#REASONS:

"3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used".

HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I draw your attention to the last part of the sentence you quote? Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could I draw your attention to the utter lack of any evidence, or even any argument, from you that the template has any likelihood of being used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled. Do you mean to say editors will never need to cite more than a single location of a source? Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this could be used, it isn't being used. It's existed for four years, and it's obvious by this point that content creators don't see any strong need for it, as they would have used it if they did. If we keep this, at best, we're forcing a template down the throat of content creators for no particular reason. ~ Rob13Talk 08:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • we're forcing a template down the throat of content creators that's a good point. But given that the template has no incoming links and it's not a member of any category, I don't really see how anyone could have ever known that it existed. Uanfala (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've placed a notice about this discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1. I'm not sure this is the best place, but at least it's frequented by the citation experts. Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. That said, I might suggest a feature request be made at Help talk:CS1 for this functionality. --Izno (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This functionality can be duplicated by using short-form citations (WP:SFN) that link to the long-form reference, an approach that may better conform to WP:INTEGRITY. But this is a matter of user choice, per WP:CITEVAR. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused, and better alternatives already exist. --NSH002 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need it. if we did, it would be in use. Frietjes (talk) 22:31, 27 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:Navbox prehistoric caves[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. Has been improved. Minimal support for deletion. Some support for a split, but arguments aren't strong. (non-admin closure) Elvey(t•c) 22:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolutely huge template, so large that it's not at all helpful for navigation, and its scope means that it cannot merely be reduced greatly, because who's to say which entries are more deserving of mention than others? I discovered this template because it was added to Mummy Cave, an article on my watchlist; with its navboxes collapsed, the article, which has WP:GA status, is 2½ times the height of my screen, while the template itself is 5 times the height of my screen. How is navigation improved when we have a box that's this tall, with links to 393 entries (plus a bunch of unlinked names) in 93 subgroups? No opposition to converting into a list or a category, but my first inclination is to delete. A few of the American entries are neither caves nor cave paintings: few enough that removing them won't make the template a useful size, but articles such as Tegtmeyer Site (see image) and Rockhouse Cliffs Rockshelters (see image) are here being treated as caves or cave paintings, and they're rockshelters literally only a few feet deep, not caves or cave paintings by any definition. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Disagree It is large but every effort has been made to concise it with abbreviated text and small fonts. It is collapsible with the default collapsed, so it is only "filling 2.5 screens" if you want it to. Many editors (e.g. @Fraenir, Doug Weller, Wikirictor, and Joe Roe:) have been working on this template and its content and their work is well appreciated by those who are interested in this subject. If it doesn't interest you or you don't like the template, then don't use or navigate it, simple enough. Your POV of dislike cannot be an argument for the many others who like the template and want to navigate using it. There is no ground to delete the hard work of getting as much information as possible available and the links to the various caves triggers useful and necessary edit work, like for example my edits on Cueva Fell, a cave I would not have found without this template. If there are entries erroneously placed; fix them. That is never a reason to delete a template. If your "first inclination" is to: 1 - not discuss first and 2 - to delete the hard work of others, then I'm glad I am not your working colleague. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I dislike it: I say that it's useless for navigation. Like any navbox, you have to uncollapse it to navigate anywhere, and when an uncollapsed navbox is twice the height of a typical article in which it's used, it's overwhelming. See WP:NAVBOX — not all articles within the template relate to a single, coherent subject (as I noted above, several of the linked article aren't caves or cave paintings at all!), the articles don't refer to each other at all, there's no Wikipedia article on the subject of "caves, rockshelters, paintings in rockshelters, and cave paintings", and no editor would be inclined to link to many of these 393 articles in the See also section. Nyttend (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You find it "useless for navigation". Others, who use the template and are actively working towards its improvement, find it useful to navigate. There is no reason why your POV should make it impossible for those interested to navigate at all (brutal "Delete tagging" without discussion first). When the template just was started, I proposed to abbreviate the names as much as possible, an idea I posted there where civilised, constructively collaborating people start voicing their opinions. That was done and even the names are made small.
You are not the one to define "what's useful and useless". People interested in world-wide distribution of those unique evidences of long ago can now navigate through the world, without having to click through various continents or time periods. They can pick the country of liking and read about the caves and rock shelters there and actually be informed about them. With a brutal, non-prediscussed deletion of a template under construction and expansion, yet always with an eye for the reader, you block that path. "No editor would be inclined" is again a projection of your opinions and views on others. So many different people, so many different editors, so many different readers. As said; if there are obvious errors in the template; fix them. Or use the many links to actually click a number of them and improve the articles, that is a constructive way forward. Brutal deletion and thus destruction of all the hard work and efforts is the exact opposite. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those of you who've composed this template don't even know what these sites are: you've included places such as Tegtmeyer and Rockhouse Hollow that manifestly don't fit the "caves or cave paintings" criteria. Why should we give any weight to people who don't even know what they're talking about? Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is compiled from the perspective of editors interested in archaeology/paleoanthropology, not geology. From the perspective of paleoanthropology, the distinction between caves and rock shelters isn't very significant. What's important is whether or not archaeological work has been done at a sight, or paleoanthropological evidence for prehistoric human activities have occurred at the site in question. Tegtmeyer: did archaeological work take place at the site? yes. Is there evidence of prehistoric human activity at the site? yes. Rockhouse Cliffs: did archaeological work take place at the site? yes. Is there evidence of prehistoric human activity at the site? yes. I've changed the title of the template to "Prehistoric cave sites, rock shelter, and cave paintings" to more accurately reflect the scope of the template - this template is really about "caves/cave-like things (generally rock shelters, and sometimes sinkholes or fissures) of interest to human prehistory" - which is another argument for keeping this template. A hard classification (usually found in categories or lists) will split these sites.Fraenir (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Tegtmeyer from the list - no archaeological work was performed at the site. However, a few mistakes in curation shouldn't invalidate the validity of the template. Fraenir (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original idea was simply to translate fr:Modèle:Palette Grottes ornées which is a normal-sized navbox, but admittedly the template has grown considerably since then. I don't see how a long navbox is ipso facto useless for navigation, however if that is that consensus, the obvious solution would seem to be to split it by continent and/or country rather than throwing away all the work and deleting it. Joe Roe (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Navigability issues can be resolved by making the template collapsible in a nested manner, or hiding certain parts of the template. For the items in this template, I think the template format actually provides for superior navigability vs a list format: admittedly, the current template format isn't the most navigation-friendly, but a list format version of this would be completely unwieldy. As for scope, that's an issue that can be discussed. I currently view the scope to be: "caves and rock shelters of interest to human prehistory". With that in mind, there's also some interesting ways to improve the template such as providing a mechanism for quick recognition of sites that have yielded human remains, sites that have yielded human DNA, etc... compact and quick delivery of key information is something that will be easier to come by via template. Fraenir (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Resolved The only right place to discuss these issues, solved. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! Is the matter resolved or not? Just asking because the Deletion Tag is still active and it makes me admittedly feel uneasy. BTW i want to KEEP the Navbox. ATBWikirictor (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikirictor, the discussion is still open. Tisquesusa has (in my opinion) made an unfortunate choice in template/image to signify that they have fixed one of the issues presented by Nyttend, and has apparently created some confusion. I would invite them to reconsider their template use. Similarly, I have reformatted your comment so that it is not on three separate lines. We can read the bold just fine. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the user who dumped a tag on a navbox under construction without discussing it first on the Talk page was "it is huge". There are literally hundreds of navboxes on Wikipedia that are huge, so that cannot be a ground for deletion. That issue was solved. The other issue that user had, was that there was content in the navbox that was misplaced. That is also no ground for the deletion of a navbox (the navigation purpose is not hindered by content that shouldn't be there), but has been solved by one of my dear colleagues here. So there is no issue anymore; the navbox is collapsed and can be expanded upon desire, just like many other navboxes are. What "discussion" is there then? Who still wants to destroy the hard work by a number of people here? And why is the decision of 1 user who dumps tags on a navbox more important than of those actually constructing something? Tisquesusa (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Navbox is collapsed on default and navigable in three simple steps from Continent via Country to Location. It is voluminous because it is a global list, which however (as already stated) is reasonably organized. Wikirictor (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikirictor. Doug Weller talk 05:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into separate navboxes for each continent, then Delete. Note that using {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} does not solve the problem of excessive links(*), it merely hides it – which is worse than before, because hidden problems tend not to get fixed. (*) increases quadratically as the number of items increases, if the navbox is to satisfy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --NSH002 (talk) 09:50, 21 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:Cite Monumentenregister/URL[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 ~ Rob13Talk 08:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless sub-template that can be substituted into the parent without causing any issue. I will "noinclude" the TfD notice, so as not to break transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 20 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:Infobox Russian city district[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 28 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:11, 28 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:Le Mans FC 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 keep. While GNG requires 1st-tier playing, navboxes do not. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template is outdated as it has not been updated since July 2013. Le Mans FC#Current squad lists 6 notable players as of January 2016. Club currently playing in the 5th tier of French football. Kq-hit (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query. @Kq-hit: What is your actual deletion rationale? "Needs to be updated" isn't one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 6 notable players at the club currently, those who have played in higher divisions before. Playing a match for the club does not make a player notable, as the club does not play in a fully professional league any longer. A squad navigation box does not have much value if there are hardly any blue links. Kq-hit (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they don't play in a fully pro league. --SuperJew (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think. Not playing in a fully professional league isn't relevant; what matters is the template having any navigational value. Working from the current squad as listed on fr.wiki, there are seven notable players with existing articles on en.wiki, which is probably enough to justify keeping. Plus another three players and the manager who satisfy our notability criteria but who don't yet have articles on here; if they had, it'd be eleven notables, which is plenty. I'll update it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the players (Alexandre Vardin) that Struway mentions here as satisfying our notability criteria but not having an article yet does not actually meet our criteria, despite the fact he has an article on fr.wiki. Their standards only require players to have played for a professional club, whether in a fully-professional league or not, so his 27 appearances in the Championnat National for the professional club Boulogne in the 2012–13 season render him notable there but not here (CN is not a WP:FPL). I've updated the template to show this. BigDom (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite my point above, I think the navbox still easily navigates between a large enough number of notable players (9 + manager) to be useful, which is the main criteria for keeping a navbox. BigDom (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Serves its purpose to navigate through the squad with mutiple bluelinks. I don't understand where playing in a fully-professional league makes a difference to navigation. --Jimbo[online] 15:04, 22 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:Walton Casuals 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7. — ξxplicit 06:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created the template myself, although upon further research have found it is not common due to the lack of links. When created there were plans for a lot of 'notable' players to join in the coming days but for various reasons this has changed. Sixtrap (Sixtrap) 13:25, 20 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_20&oldid=1144966246"