Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 23
| < October 22 | October 24 > |
|---|
October 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was G2, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-functional for a year, not used anywhere. GregorB (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as test page. I think the purpose was to create a timeline. But we don't use templates to do that:)Curb Chain (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- 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 keep until articles are merged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
All of the articles in this navbox are to be merged into Disney Resort Line as consensus of AfDs. Rcsprinter (shout) 10:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for now, delete when merge complete. Some AfD merges can take a year or two. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep until merge is complete. This nomination was a little pre-emptive. Users will still want to navigate between the articles in their current state, and this navbox serves that purpose. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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. Insufficient blue links to be useful; redlinked players are not likely to satisfy WP:NFOOTY for a year or two. Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Template full of red links, not particularly useful. Too low a level a tournament in terms of the age range involved. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete While participation a competition itself is a notable aspect of an athlete's playing career, their teammates are not. Therefore, this is an attempt to join several articles by a trivial link. Resolute 00:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- We do have a lot of similar templates though - see Category:National football team templates. That said, there don't seem to be many such templates at under-17 level, which is the more relevant issue. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. I think they are all junk, but several sport projects seem fascinated by these pointless navboxes. I'd rather delete them all, but also know that is unlikely. These ones based around minor competitions have widespread support for removal, however. Resolute 14:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- We do have a lot of similar templates though - see Category:National football team templates. That said, there don't seem to be many such templates at under-17 level, which is the more relevant issue. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete these templates are usual and used with in WP:Footy however this is all red linked so no use to anyone. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, the links are red today. But in a year or two, these players will have there own article. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NAV is pretty clear that navboxes are for existing articles, of which there are only three in the template. I also agree that tournaments at this level don't need navboxes. If the members go on to become notable enough for their own articles, it will be due to playing on future, more notable teams, in which case they will go in those navboxes. — Bility (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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.