Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

July 19

[edit]
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. There are a number of transclusions that need to be replaced/addressed so as not to break tables. czar 01:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues with this template. First, the link it creates to the "Thing of country" page is tiny, literally just a superscript dagger, which is not accessible. Second, it has a WP:PEIS that is too large for a template intended to be used hundreds of times per article. I have had to remove it at Special:Diff/1028180415 and at Special:Diff/1029158320, where all the references and plenty of the flags themselves were broken, which does make me wonder if the author's "preview" button is working properly. Better made flag templates exist. User:GKFXtalk 07:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: I forgot to say this in the initial nomination (though you can see it in the diffs linked), but {{flagg|unpe|pref=Economy of|UK}} expands out to  United Kingdom, has one nice big link, and is low-PEIS, so there is an alternative to this template. {{Flagg}} does however also have the issue that it isn't clear where the link goes. User:GKFXtalk 13:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.
  1. I created the template to satisfy the real demand that already existed in many lists of countries, in which there already were links to see more next to the countries. This template aimed at making them easier to maintain, as it makes the table entries homogenous.
  2. The template already offers editors the alternative to specifying the see more link other than the default dagger through the more parameter.
  3. If you don't like the dagger as default, you're welcome to propose a change to it.
  4. If the template is heavy, you're welcome to improve it or add to its doc page that it shouldn't be used in heavy pages (which those pages you cited certainly are). There are plenty of heavy templates on Wikipedia; that's hardly a good reason to have them deleted.
— 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 21:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem is that the actual fix is to remove the pointless country link and leave only the "see more" link, which is the main link there, not a see more link. So if you remove that issue, then the standard template is enough. Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it is inconsistent across pages, and not evident to casual WP readers that the hyperlinked country names mean different things in different articles (or possibly different tables on the same article even). So much that in a number of articles, editors have chosen to put a (more) or (see more) link next to each country name and flag. My intent in creating {{flaglist+link}} was to fulfill this need while reducing the clutter. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 00:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to be consistent with bad articles, those need to be fixed. And we don't need to fix them all at the same time or do nothing. As an example article (since it's linked above), see List of sovereign states and dependencies by total fertility rate. The issue here is that whoever created this article did a horrible job with the tables. In the middle of each tables are sections which aren't actual data rows, which should not be in tables; the 3 tables can be merged into one table; the country link is an WP:EGG link (and it's an egg link even with the "see more" option). The EGG link can be fixed by changing the table caption / section header / adding a prose section before stating "Demographics in countries...". All of these fixes would reduce the article size, make the tables clearer and much more follow MoS guidelines. Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to be consistent with bad articles, those need to be fixed.
The consistency I spoke of is that between country names being linked to their generic pages on some lists, and to topic specific articles on others. And on touchscreen devices, readers can only know which is which actually clicking (touching?) through the links! IMHO, {{flag+link}} (and its emulation with {{flagg}}, which you replaced {{flaglist+link}} with on that list of countries by fertility) is the flagrant MOS/Accessibility problem here.
the 3 tables can be merged into one table
Agreed.
All of these fixes would reduce the article size, make the tables clearer and much more follow MoS guidelines.
Right. So the problem is that page, which you used as an example, not {{flaglist+link}}. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 02:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I already cut the weight of the template by half by returning to use {{thecountry}} to remove two {{#ifexist}} from it. Adding it back to the pages GKFX cited possibly will no longer break WP:PEIS. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 01:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm here because of the template's use in List of countries and dependencies by population. I made comments on the talk page that I now see recapitulate discussion that's already happened here. Now, I don't know about the backend stuff (WP:PEIS is news to me), but from a usability point of view, I definitely think the dagger has got to go. I agree with Guarapiranga's core assertion that linking a country name to something other than the country article is confusing, but I don't think the dagger is the way to go. We could have a properly described link to (say) "Demographics of…", perhaps in a new column of the table, though I can foresee this leading to arguments about concise vs verbose. If concise wins the day, something indicative like "(d)" for demographics—clearly explained at the top of the table—would be better than the dagger. I don't think a generic "(more)" or "(further information)" is desirable, but if and where the template needs some default text I'd argue for "(more)". Above all the two wikilinks need to be distinct, which the dagger currently isn't. -- Perey (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a generic "(more)" or "(further information)" is desirable
The more/main link is already customisable via the more named parameter. The default dagger can be changed in the source, of course. I chose it to reduce the clutter, and improve readability and accessibility of pages that were already using (more). That wasn't the reason for creating the template, though; the reason was reducing the redundancy (and room for inconsistencies) of parametrising the country twice (one for the generic page and another for the more/main link). — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 12:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing accessible about the dagger links; they are far too small. A clickable area of around 6×14 px is challenging with a mouse, and very challenging on touch, particularly with another link next to it going to a different place. They are also difficult to see and a reader would have no way of knowing that they should use the dagger link to find the Thing of Country page. I appreciate that you've just put in mouseover text, but that is unavailable to mobile users (who are a majority of readers) and doesn't help people to find the link in the first place. (It also seems to be the same text that MediaWiki puts on the <a> tag anyway.) User:GKFXtalk 13:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you've just put in mouseover text, but that is unavailable to mobile users (who are a majority of readers) and doesn't help people to find the link in the first place.
Yeah, that wasn't the purpose, though, GKFX. I added it in response to Perey's request.
There's nothing accessible about the dagger links; they are far too small.
As I said there to Perey... My choice of the dagger was sort of inspired by that icon WP shows after external links. It means: click here for more (or to go there, etc). It doesn't necessarily have to explicitly say what's there, if it's implied by the context (which, in this case, of a list of countries by population, that it is something about population of that particular daggered country). I picked the dagger bc it's a usual footnote marking, which is where one would usually find further information about a fragment in the text, but I'm not married to it. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 13:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Perey meant he expected the dagger was a link to a footnote, not a link to another article at all. The icon shown after external links is part of the same link; it doesn't go elsewhere so it's not the same thing at all. Per WP:EGG I think I'll update {{Flagg|unpe}} at least to have its text say where it goes. User:GKFXtalk 13:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the template breaks WP:EGG and WP:ACCESSIBILITY#Links. The use (even the presence) of the dagger symbol is not explained on articles concerned - when I first saw them, I started looking for the corresponding footnote. Kahastok talk 13:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Which part of WP:ACCESSIBILITY#Links do you find it breaks, Kahastok: (1) or (2)?
    2. I'd say that linking the country name to the specific thematic article (Thing of country) rather than the generic country page, as GKFX's example up top -- {{flagg|unpe|pref=Economy of|UK}} →  United Kingdom -- is the actual WP:EASTEREGG. Readers, especially in mobile devices, have no way of knowing that the link takes them anywhere but the country's own generic article (unless they mouse over on a desktop). That, in fact, is what breaks WP:ACCESSIBILITY#Links:

      Create good link descriptions

      — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 13:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Guarapiranga: how does this strike you? User:GKFX/sandbox has {{flagg/sandbox|unpet|pref=Economy of|Australia}} render to "style="text-align:left"| Australia", including the left-alignment required for tables and satisfying both WP:EGG and WP:SOB. User:GKFXtalk 14:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:ACCESSIBILITY#Links does it break? Both. Bad link description and uses a random Unicode character as an icon.
You object to United Kingdom on the basis that readers can't tell what they're being taken to. That may be true. But † doesn't resolve that. Far from it - it's actually worse. When I first saw it I wasn't expecting to be taken to a different article at all. Didn't even notice it was a link. Kahastok talk 14:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad link description and uses a random Unicode character as an icon.
    The icon is not randomised; the default is fixed, and editors can change it to anything else they deem more fit through the more arg. And WP:ACCESSIBILITY#Links doesn't preclude icons use; what it does is require an alt text when one is used:

    Do not use Unicode characters as icons; use an icon with alt text instead.

  • You object to United Kingdom on the basis that readers can't tell what they're being taken to. That may be true. But † doesn't resolve that.
    Ok, let's resolve it some other way. As I said, I'm not married to the dagger. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 00:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment following template change. The new version uses (more) instead of †. In my view, this is an improvement. You aren't actually expecting a footnote any more. But it does not adequately resolve either of the issues I raised in my previous comment. It still breaks WP:EGG, it's still a bad link description per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. So it does not change my view that the template should be deleted. Kahastok talk 18:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I echo the concern of User:Kahastok about the dagger being non-intuitive and mistakable for a footnote. I am highly doubtful than any simple, single symbol can convey the same message as "(more)" or "(see more)". I like what User:GKFX has done in their sandbox above, which I think is a rather elegant solution to the problem of over-linking articles to countries (which are rarely help readers), and the problem at hand about creating something that is clear, intuitive and a not an easter egg. I think the template can be salvaged from deletion, but it needs to address these problems with its default configuration, which I think should probably just be (more) or (see more). I came here from Talk:List of countries by age of consent#Sources column, where I raised similar concerns (I missed the link entirely). — Goszei (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Trialpears (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note It appears two of the significant concerns about the template, a dagger being a bad link text and template limits being hit, have been significantly improved. It would be useful in determining consensus if delete !voters reaffirmed their position. Pinging @GKFX and Gonnym: who haven't commented after the changes. --Trialpears (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am OK with the template's appearance and accessibility now. On template limits, the pages linked in the original nomination (Special:PermaLink/1029018086 and Special:PermaLink/1028090851) would still be broken if they used this template, hitting the node count limit. So I wouldn't say this template is 100% fixed but it's certainly been improved, and no live page is affected by the node count issue. User:GKFXtalk 21:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the template documentation should state that WP:PEIS requires that this not be used on every table on a multi-table page. In an article what is the maximum number of country tables this can be used on without problems? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find any link titled in vein of "more", "see also" or a random symbol horrible. The column's title is "Country or dependent territory" so the link should only be the country, though that link is pointless, which is why the "more" link was added. The table should be fixed instead of creating templates to work around its faults. As GKFX points the above pages would still be broken with the template which means that it doesn't even work for the small amount of pages aspires to. My delete vote still stands. Gonnym (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The column head could explain the "more" link. Or a note just above the table could explain the "more" link. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks everyone for all this great work. If WP:PEIS is the main problem then why not get rid of the double links altogether? Instead just put one link that can be either to the country page, or to the more specialized page (if it exists). Then put a non-linked asterisk at the end of the country name to indicate a specialized link. Asterisks are common notation to indicate something different, or some asterisk note elsewhere that explains the asterisk. The asterisk note in the column head, or just above the table, could explain what those specialized links are. For example, "Economy of" links. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked about this in more detail here: User talk:GKFX/sandbox. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GKFX adapted the {{flagg}} template to allow asterisks. I then added the parameter to vertically align the country names, and then put the adapted example in User:Timeshifter/Sandbox140. The asterisks are explained in a note above the table. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guarapiranga and anybody else with the necessary skills. Is this possible? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem. The "more" links do not wrap. This makes tables too wide for some screen widths and resolutions. Can that be fixed? The multi-word country names wrap fine. This allows tables to fit in more screens, cell phones, tablets, etc.. To see what I am talking about narrow your browser width while viewing a page with a table using the template. Note that the "more" link never separates from the country name. It should wrap. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guarapiranga for fixing this. See diff. I tested here by narrowing the browser window:
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate&oldid=1029974781
--Timeshifter (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. Guarapiranga. Please see: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox140. With {{Flagg}} using the unlinked asterisk we meet WP:EGG requirements in the most efficient way. See User talk:GKFX/sandbox too. GKFX there says {{Flagg}} is the best option available regarding WP:PEIS limit issues. Is this true? So is there any reason to keep your template {{Flaglist+link}}? Does it do anything that {{Flagg}} can't do with all its many options? Or does your template do some things better? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it do anything that {{Flagg}} can't do with all its many options?
By that criterion, as template:flagg's own doc shows, all the following templates would also have to be deleted (as indeed template:flagg is very general): {{flag}}, {{flagbig}}, {{flagc}}, {{flagcountry}}, {{flagdeco}}, {{flagicon}}, {{flagicon image}}, {{flaglink}}, {{flag+link}}, {{flaglist}}, {{flagof}}, {{flagright}}, {{flagu}}, {{noflag}}, {{fb}}, {{fb-big}}, {{fb-rt}}, {{fbu}}, {{fbw}}, {{fbwu}}, {{army}}, {{navy}}, {{air force}}. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guarapiranga. What do you think of the asterisk solution at User:Timeshifter/Sandbox140? Doesn't it help the WP:PEIS issue since there is one link instead of two? Are there other WP:PEIS issues remaining with {{Flaglist+link}}? Are flag templates that don't use Lua faster in some ways? I don't think {{Flaglist+link}} uses Lua. If it is faster, is it only faster for editing? Are simple reader page loads effected? {{Flaglist+link}} is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It is easy to convert it to a simple country link too. Just by removing the "+link" from the template. In case there is no specialized country page. I just wish it used the asterisk instead of 2 links. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endeavour to address your comments and questions, Timeshifter:
  1. Are there other WP:PEIS issues remaining with {{Flaglist+link}}?
    Not that I'm aware of. The WP:PEIS was largely a red herring; as Gonnym pointed out above, whoever created this article (the one {{flaglist+link}} breached WP:PEIS) did a horrible job with the tables. In any case, I replaced a couple of {{#ifexist}} with another (inexpensive) logic just to be sure.
  2. What do you think of the asterisk solution at User:Timeshifter/Sandbox140? Doesn't it help the WP:PEIS issue since there is one link instead of two?
    As indicated in (1), WP:PEIS is not really an issue, and what I think of the asterisk is that it's unclear and as much of an WP:EGG as linking country names directly to Topic of country pages.
  3. Are flag templates that don't use Lua faster in some ways?
    Not that I'm aware of. It probably depends very much on the case. Use of Lua is limited to 10s processing time per page rendering, though, which can add up quickly in country list articles.
  4. I don't think {{Flaglist+link}} uses Lua.
    It doesn't. I avoid it when I can, simply bc it's less accessible to most editors.
  5. {{Flaglist+link}} is fairly intuitive and simple to use.
    That was my intention. Seems like I satisfied that aim. {{Flagg}}, OTOH, isn't.
  6. I just wish it used the asterisk instead of 2 links.
    Use the other template for that then, perhaps. Why remove from other editors the choice, simply bc the template doesn't work how you'd like it to? Whenever I can't find a template that does what I want, I create one. And so {{flaglist+link}} was born (and now it's used in over 80 country list articles).
If it WP:AINTBROKE, what's to fix? — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless changed to one link. It is still broke. There should only be one link, not two. Emphasis added below:
Gonnym wrote: "As GKFX points the above pages would still be broken with the template which means that it doesn't even work for the small amount of pages aspires to. My delete vote still stands."
GKFX wrote: "On template limits, the pages linked in the original nomination (Special:PermaLink/1029018086 and Special:PermaLink/1028090851) would still be broken if they used this template, hitting the node count limit."
--Timeshifter (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is broken. It fails on large pages and it fails MOS:EGG. Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guarapiranga. I forgot to ping you in my last reply to you. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2021 (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:Deus Ex chronology

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 August 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 16 August 2021 (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:OFC Nations Cup winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{Oceania Nations Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. -- S ellinson (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just deleted this templates from an article where it duplicated content already in the article. It only remains in two articles. Reviewing them, why are we duplicating this on the page of each team??? We have an article covering the yearly winners, interested readers can and should just follow a link to that article. Alsee (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2021 (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).

FIFA Winners Templates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of the winners. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreations of deleted templates from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. These should not have been recreated. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2021 (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:Copa América winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of the winners. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{Copa América}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. --S ellinson (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2021 (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:CONCACAF Gold Cup winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{CONCACAF Gold Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and to give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2021 (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:Africa Cup of Nations winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team/manager articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of individuals/teams. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and to give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2021 (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:AFC Asian Cup winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team/manager articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of individuals/teams. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. Superseded by Template:AFC Asian Cup. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{AFC Asian Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. --S ellinson (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and to give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2021 (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:UEFA Women's Championship winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team/manager articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of individuals/teams. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under navbox crust and only linked to the articles of the winning teams in the template. Redundant to Template:UEFA Women's Championship which makes better usage of the mainspace topic it was created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and to give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (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:AFC Challenge Cup top scorers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team/manager articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of individuals/teams. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No information can be gained from this template as there already exists a table of the top scorers on the mainspace. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can make that claim against most templates, as templates should be created only when supported by a mainspace article/section. Such a claim makes templates in general redundant and is therefore not a valid case for deletion of a template. --SuperJew (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can we tell they were the top scorers? Navboxes are not for this purpose. Navboxes are for mainspaces, not sections. This doesn't make templates generally redundant. This template is redundant for the purpose it was created for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: I didn't understand the question How can we tell they were the top scorers. How can you tell anything? Via the information in the mainspace article/section. I don't understand what difference you're making between mainspaces and sections (Navboxes are for mainspaces, not sections) - the section is part of the mainspace.
So to clarify: Would you say based on this logic that {{UEFA Champions League top scorers}}, {{UEFA Europa League top scorers}}, {{FIFA World Cup top scorers}}, {{UEFA European Championship top scorers}}, and {{Copa América top scorers}} (to name a few of the same style) should be deleted? --SuperJew (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They should be looked at. Navbox crust is an issue that relates to templates like these. It just links to the articles of the players. That's a similar issue with the winners of the football/soccer tournaments. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: It just links to the articles of the players - but that's what every navbox does. What navbox does anything beyond link to the articles it lists? --SuperJew (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a template helpful for navigation. I'm not aware of any sports-related or navigational template that's for stats or about player's stats. And if a template in its title links to an article section even if it includes the mainspace link, it's an issue. The title of navboxes should only link to the mainspace article. And this template isn't used on the mainspace and so does some of the related templates I looked at. It's redundant to the main AFC template which is far more useful for navigation. All these tournaments' top scorers information are better off on a section of the main article, not on an individual template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: I'm not sure if we're looking at the same template. And this template isn't used on the mainspace - how so? Every player linked in the navbox has the template used on his page. I'm not aware of any sports-related or navigational template that's for stats or about player's stats. - almost every top scorer award of a major tournament or league that I'm aware of has a navbox to link between the recepients. So do leading goalkickers in the Australian Football League and the AFL Women's (for example {{Melbourne leading goalkickers}}). And I would appreciate if you answer the question and provide an example of a navbox that does anything beyond link to the article it lists.
The mainspace is the AFC article where there already exists a template for it. That's the mainspace template. And that template makes this one and all other AFC-related templates, at least the ones I nominated, redundant for its purpose. The issue with these templates, sports-related, mainly football/soccer templates is that there is too much of this redundancy. Too much of this crust. There is no need for multiple templates when one can do the job. And for stats, at least the articles for stats, it doesn't need a template as every page doesn't need its own template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 19 July 2021 (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:AFC Challenge Cup winning managers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team/manager articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of individuals/teams. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox with no clear navigational purpose. Only linked to five articles and will not be updated since there were only five AFC tournaments played. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It has a clear navagational purpose - to navigate between managers who won the AFC Challenge Cup. Five articles is a fine amount, regardless of there being no potential for further expansion. --SuperJew (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 19 July 2021 (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:AFC Challenge Cup winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Editors in favour of deletion made arguments that it duplicates article content and, since they link to the general team/manager articles, are not well-connected. Editors in favour of keeping believe it has value for the reader due to providing a chronological format of individuals/teams. There is ultimately no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Feel free to renominate later, and perhaps the consensus will be different then. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recreation of a deleted template from a Tfd from August 2010. The rationale for deletion was "navbox cruft" where these types of templates just list winners. This template is redundant in comparison to Template:AFC Challenge Cup. I do intend to nominate the recreated templates from the August 2010 Tfd for deletion as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent template {{AFC Challenge Cup}}, no need for a separate template. GiantSnowman 14:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The general team that won the competition is not well-connected to the year in which they won the competition. If this were connected to a specific year's team, it might be reasonable (I make no comment on whether such articles do or should exist), but linking to the general team is not. I see no value accordingly for merging. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template provides a useful chronological summary for the reader in a common format. It enables them to cpmpare competitions across time. --S ellinson (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and to give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2021 (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:FIFA Arab Cup champions

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

per Tfd from August 2010. Falls under navbox crust where it just links to the teams that won. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has the function to show the winners of the cup and to give synthetic knowledge in order to compare editions, in a recap list. It may end up looking like a reiteration of information, but that's exactly what an encyclopedia exists for. --Foghe (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is not a reiteration of information. An encyclopedia provides information. And this template doesn't do that. Its navigational and informational purpose is redundant or unfulfilled. It's largely used on the national teams' articles. And Template:FIFA Arab Cup has the same purpose this template tries to do. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 1995 (Sweden)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 2004 (Slovakia)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete to election articles. Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2021 (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:Slovenian presidential election, 2012

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and redundant as the article for the 2012 election uses a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as election article uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 2007 (Romania)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete to election articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 1987 (Portugal)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete to election articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 2004 (Lithuania)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete to election articles. Gonnym (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 2004 (Estonia)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete to election articles. Gonnym (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 1981 (Greece)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 1996 (Finland)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 1979 (Denmark)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (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:European Parliament election, 1996 (Austria)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on since these won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2021 (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:Ukrainian Parliament changes after 2007 election

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use templates that should be substituted on the articles it's used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete to election pages and also section transclude the 2012 template to 7th Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada. Gonnym (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2021 (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:2010 Ukrainian local elections

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 July 27. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2021 (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:Honcharuk government

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Honcharuk Government template nominated below by Gonnym. This one is unused and can't be substituted anywhere because no information can be gained from it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2021 (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:Skin Alley

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Note that there are currently two drafts related to this template being written; should they be successfully moved to the article space (i.e. reviewed and kept) there is no prejudice against recreation and/or revisiting the question of whether this template is necessary. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With no albums and only 2 band members with articles, this navbox doesn't provide any additional navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:59, 19 July 2021 (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:World's richest people

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 July 27. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2021 (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:IBD1915

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even content that comes from sources in the public domain should be sourced correctly, inline near what is being referenced. Template:Cite IBD1915 does that. There is no need also for this blanket statement. Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2021 (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:Ministers of Defense of Ukraine after Independence

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2021 (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:Azarov Government

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2021 (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:Honcharuk Government

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2021 (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:Groysman Government

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2021 (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:First General Secretariat of Ukraine

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2021 (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:Yatsenyuk Government two

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2021 (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:Yatsenyuk Government

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2021 (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:Ukraine PM confirmation 2016

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2021 (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:Ukraine PM confirmation 2014

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (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:Ukraine government no confidence Feb2016

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (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:Ukraine government formation 2014 dec

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple table which is used only on one article, not something that should be a template. The table should be subst to the article and the template deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2021 (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:Politics of Ukraine (small)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 merge to Template:Politics of Ukraine. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Politics of Ukraine (small) with Template:Politics of Ukraine.
Both of these are sidebar navboxes for the same exact scope and used for the same exact links. There is no reason to have two styles which make it harder for readers to find the correct link. Whichever is a better style should be the one chosen. Gonnym (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2021 (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).

Harz-Berlin-Express templates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-line}} templates for the Harz-Berlin-Express. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Abellio Rail Mitteldeutschland. All transclusions replaced. There are 16 dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2021 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_19&oldid=1049986757"