Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 11

< August 10	August 12 >

August 11 edit

Template:User Prison Break 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC) This template has basically the same information as Template:User PrisonBreak which is more popular. It has no transclusions. Please note, I like user templates and hope that the reduction of them will help keep them in Template space where they belong. - LA @ 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and redundant template. —Mi ra 05:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Law & Order series 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC) These templates have basically the same information, so a master template was created that could handle variables to make it say the same thing those below say all in one template. They have no transclusions. Please note, I like user templates and hope that the reduction of them will help keep them in Template space where they belong. - LA @ 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the new template makes the rest redundant. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:PetePetersTest 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 page.

The result of the debate was userfy --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template space isn't a sandbox. Computerjoe 's talk 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest usefying this if it's not going to be used more than once, or renaming if it turns out to be a proper template that isn't restricted to just one user. — FireFox ^(talk) _{18:38, 12 August '06}

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 page.

Template:BlockUsername 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete (now userfied, however) --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused template created by User:Son_of_a_Peach because he apparently wants to tell other users with inappropriate usernames that they will be blocked (see User_talk:JoanneB). Inappropriate usernames should just be brought up at WP:AIAV or WP:AN/I. We don't have such a high inappropriate-username-hunting-non-administrator-to-administrator ratio that this template and the categories are needed. A warning before blocking is useful for unintentional inappropriateness, but this is not a warning - with wording like "Administrators: After blocking this account..." and categories like Category:Wikipedia inappropriate username blocks to enforce; it's basically saying "you are about to be blocked", from someone who can't enforce it himself. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-11 19:12Z

Delete. I can see the good intentions behind it, but I don't think this is a good idea. Bringing it up at WP:AIV works quite well and probably quite a lot faster than a template like this, as admins can't place a category on their watchlist to see what's added to it. --Joanne B 07:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoanneB --Doc 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and who deleted my previous vote? SoaP 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What if an admin disagrees with the template? By that time, a new editor could be scared away. And would we see new users being blocked for removing this template from their user page? All in all, very many down sides, no appreciable ups. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - although, looking at it now, it has been userfied and the two categories have been populated. I think that means this is closed and off we go to MfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed: SoaP moved Template:BlockUsername to User:Son of a Peach/BlockUsername: Userfied to avoid a fate worse than vandalism (death). I think it was a bad idea to do the move during this TFD discussion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-15 20:52Z

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 page.

Template:No sides 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 page.

The result of the debate was userfy/delete --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Kind of a nonsense template, little or no meaning, mostly just a personal essay in template space--172.147.153.86 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's boilerplate text that I plan to subst into a lot of talk pages. --Uncle Ed 13:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Delete unless there's some really good reason for making it a template. BigDT 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems quite vague, and its points are covered in policy like WP:AGF and WP:POINT. — G a ry Kirk | ^talk! 14:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd feel better about deleting this if there were something at Category:Neutrality templates that performed the same function, that is, to provide a rote message about WP:NPOV for talk pages. --M @r ē ino 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:FairuseF1 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 page.

I went ahead and redirect this to Template:No license and protected the F1 template from reverting. Now we know what images for us to shoot later on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It marks an image as a "Fair use Formula One image", but I fail to see what this means. The template's text does not explains in which cases the use of the tagged image is believe to qualify as fair use.Abu Badali 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Formula One" is not a license. It isn't even a special case of some license. If people want to sort unfree "Formula One" images, this isn't the right way to do it; don't use a template that looks anything like one of our fair use boilerplate license templates. Jkelly 01:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's nothing special about images of Formula One subjects that makes use of them more likely to meet Wikipedia's policy -- if anything, the opposite is true. --Carnildo 01:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a useful categorization. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:No license, not useful for categorization. (Please don't delete; it's more useful to have things properly tagged as having no license, or so I gather.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template tells nothing about the copyright status of the image. The fact that the subject of the photo has to do with Formula One doesn't make the image qualify for fair use. BigDT 15:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

All FIFA World Cup squad templates 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensous, revert to keep --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After much dicussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, they have been deemed surplus to recquirements, and annoying and useless, as the only duplicate information already contained in the relevant articles on the competitions, the players, and the teams, so basically they are duplications of information, not to mention the growing numbers of them are cluttering the relevant articles. In a pre-emptive vote to check the stance of people on them, they vote was 12:3 in favour of deletion. Along with this any continental one that may spring up at future dates, any of the same concept that I have missed, and any that are yet to be made, or will be re-created. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT I would like to bring to peoples attention that we are not proposing the deletion of the information from Wikipedia, just these templates. The information will remain of articles such as this. Which is adequate enough. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Delete - per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and per nom Philc _T^E_C^I 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per discussion on WikiProject Football. Qwghlm 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Categories are fine, but templates should go, or else we get one hell of a mess at the bottom of articles like Thierry Henry. Oldelpaso 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per discussion on WikiProject: Football. Bruno18 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:WPF discussion and per nom. – Elisson • Talk 18:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - pointless clutter. - fchd 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it pointless? It presents information. Are you calling the squad templates pointless too then? MonsterOfTheLake 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They are redundant to the World Cup squad list articles and the World Cup players categories...Wikiproject Football doesn't want them...The first (for WC2006) were created with the intention of being deleted after the World Cup...Delete before they spread to other competitions. Slumgum T. C. 21:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~, per the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. I actually created a large number of these templates, but I never meant for them to remain after the World Cup had finished. jaco♫plane 22:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that templates like Template:West Germany Squad 1990 World Cup have also been nominated for deletion. I am changing my view to Delete all except for the champions. I think that all teams that won the world cup should have this template on their article. Please dump the rest though... jaco♫plane 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. BlueValour 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The 2006 World Cup is well over now and all the other World cups are even more over. All you need is a mention in text on pages not whole templates that just clutter. SenorKristobbal 10:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the articles already exist listing squads, don't see reason for keeping historical squad templates Dodge 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most - these cause so much clutter (see Paolo Maldini as noted above), but I like Dan1980 and jaco's suggestion of keeping the winning squad templates. Those seem pretty notable and highly unlikely to cause the clutter problem we currently have. --Loudsox 13:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Completely useless duplication of info. - Pal 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Basically Philc's second bulleted comment at the top says it all for me. They are clutter. The historical information is better served on squad pages. Yes they can be useful, but so is a simple link to the appropriate section of the appropriate World Cup squads page - such a link can also be incorporated into the prose, and keeps the relevent infomation on the relevent pages. aLii 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as distracting and minorly useful clutter. Why does everything need its own nav box these days. Fl owerparty^☀ 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a more useful national team template would be the current international squad. This could then be overwritten accordingly for each new squad, so that occassionally a player will have no international template if he is withdrawn/injured, etc. I'd prefer a standard international template, e.g. Template:Scotland football squad, which would show the current squad. The bulk of the squad would stay the same so would only require minor editing on individual player pages. Fedgin 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There are much, MUCH better ways for article navigation than this. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A player's teammates have little to no relevance to the individual's biography. If ever an article were written about me, I'd be aghast if it were adorned by links to my work colleagues. Even more so if the links were not just from my current job, but from my previous ones as well! ⁂veila # 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Strong keep all. I can not fathom the reasons as to why anyone would think these are useless. The only problem would be if a player is in 3+ squads. If it's such a huge bother (it's not), we can set it up like other templates, so it can be expanded. But definitely keep the squad list. The information is NOT widely available, I don't think any team page lists the squads they had at other tournaments, only the current ones. Categories are bloated and useless, yet these allow for easy navigation and access to information. VERY strong keep unless someone can give a legit reason as to why these should be deleted. MonsterOfTheLake 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are pages such as this, 1990 FIFA World Cup squads, not good enough? Philc _T^E_C^I 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because there is no link from (for example) Walter Zenga article to 1990 FIFA World Cup squads.--Kwame Nkrumah 08:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL. Categories are unorganized and poorly edited. Just find a measure to deal with a player appearing on too many squads, if that is too much of a problem. Waya 5 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories "unorganized and poorly edited" are they? Guess what, anyone can edit wikipedia, so fix them. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, instead of keeping a fast, easy solution that's also pleasing to look at; let's edit the entire wiki category engine. Great call. MonsterOfTheLake 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, just make a subcategory. You can you know, its not difficult, no messing with wiki-engines or anything. Dont be such a smartass. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, because subcategories are EASIER to navigate than categories. Are you still making a comparison between the ease of accessibility of a template right on the page and category pages? MonsterOfTheLake 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL as per Waya 5 and MonsterOfTheLake's reasons Kingjamie 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to delete these World Cup templates then you should also delete squad templates as well as the Template:Aston Villa F.C. Squad is the same as Aston Villa F.C. page details. Kingjamie 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look all of this has been discussed here, maybe you should take a look before saying something. For one reason, teams like aston villa still exist. World cup squads do not. Philc _T^E_C^I 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP templates are not overly distracting and are very useful to jump around members of a team. Few players, if any, have more than 3 World Cup appearances and it helps to tie information together in a friendly format. ~JuanD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.67.129.151 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 66.67.129.151 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- 18 players have competed in four or more World Cups, and this, together with all other templates (for example, do you want templates for the European Championships too?) makes page design look bad, and is not overly helpful as the categories and text gives you enough info anyway. – Elisson • Talk 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per my own feelings that these are useful information boxes. Batman2005 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These are very useful information boxes. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Discussd before, Should standardize instead of delete. Matt86hk talk 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you proposing? They are standardized, they are pretty much all the same layout etc. Just that they're useless. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They should always be put at the bottom of the article just above the categories, so that they don't impose the need for scrolling to reach the useful info and don't add that much clutter. Big players' articles usually have much less useful parts. I find them useful for quick navigation and a first-look indication that the player took part in the respective competition. They are also quite visually appealing - this should not be underestimated. There are people that visit wikipedia incidentally and stuff like this can make a difference - first impression is important. Most infoboxes on wikipedia contain information that is already present somewhere else - should we remove them all? These templates weren't created with the idea to contain uniqie information in the first place. --Dstoykov 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – or, in fact, a partial oppose. I oppose the deletion of current/latest templates for World Cup squads, as they are used widely and of high interest (and therefore navigationally valuable). I support the deletion of older templates. So currently I would support keeping 2006 squads, deleting the older ones. -- Wantok 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- as they are used widely and of high interest (and therefore navigationally valuable)
  - And how, praytell, are pre-2006 templates not EXACTLY that? MonsterOfTheLake 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a question of balancing usefulness against clutter - and thus, of how frequently used the templates are. Those that are used often are worth keeping, justifying their space on the page. I believe that the templates of the latest World Cup squads are used enough to keep, and the others not so, but it's a subjective judgement call, of course. It's been stated that information will not be lost through any of this - just accessed a different way. -- Wantok 05:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've used these templates to navigate a lot. What's the point is deleting stuff that's useful? By that logic, go ahead and delete all the special pages, the navigation links on the left, and everyone's watchlist. Deleting the templates here would be undoubtedly opposed by me heavily. Esteffect 02:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Couldn't have said it any better myself. Squadoosh 08:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we delete these templates, why don't we delete all the club squad templates just as well? I think these templates can be very helpful.--Vitriden 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the clubs still exist!? 172.206.180.165 19:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Club squad templates have current squads. These are past squads. A better comparison would be to keep club templates for all previous seasons. As you will read above, these templates were created for a specific reason that is now gone. Recording squads for WCs is fine; but better done as editorial. BlueValour 19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They enable navigation and identification of players in a more informative way than categories on their own would. Overall I see no big issue with the templates myself. Ansell 01:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep I understand the "clutter" issue but most of the players in these squads only have stubs or short articles attached. A (very small) minority have long articles with a lot of info on the page. Personally, I use these templates all the time to navigate and to see the various links between players' international and clubs careers. I find them very useful! It would be much harder to find the info on Wikipedia without them. Compromise? The list of individual players could be removed (less clutter) but the top section of the template could be kept as a kind of banner - which would then link to the team list on a separate page? Just an idea, as I don't favour complete removal. (Sorry, forgot to log in before) Madsqueak 01:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. Clutter can be resolved by collapsing tables on pages where more than one table is featured. Instinkt 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep. Templates are for easy reference.--Tdxi an g Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful. Guettarda 04:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These templates are useful for navigation and present information in a clear and concise way. Kelso21 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I use these on a regular basis when just randomly browsing. They're incredibly useful. KingStrato 17:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are useful... —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for all of 2006, all medal holders of previous years. Delete other. --Monk 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IMPORTANT and I wish to notice that if any template is to be deleted, MAKE SURE you place information from it (squad, shirt numbers at least!) into the corresponding article! --Monk 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, templates are compact and useful for navigation. If to delete, then we should delete all the susecion boxes that serve a similar purpose. Mariano(t/c) 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mariano. Mxcatania 14:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, I'm agreed with many other keep reasons. These templates are very useful and they provide comfortable navigation.Repli cant 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add hide/show function to all. --Bob 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add hide function per Bob. Hardrada 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Sina 21:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. They are nice and useful for notable squads, but notability is unfortunately not easy to define. I'd like to see a JavaScript-collapsed version of the template in the future. GregorB 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be honest, I've found them useful. I think it would be nice if someone went through and added a hide option though. ==> [dM] 09:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add collapse table/hide function though Onomatopoeia 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think that if smeone put time and effort into creating them, they should not be deleted. Besides, they are useful for quick reference, I have found. King fish erswift 14:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I put quite a lot of time and effort in creating these templates (amongst others, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] .. and many club templates as well) I never thought that these templates would be used after the world cup had finished. Seeing as this discussion is leaning towards keep, I'm actually really regretting putting that time and effort in to something that I don't want to see kept indefinitely on these articles. jaco♫plane 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the oldest one [16] and also someone who intended them to be deleted a few months after the WC, I would also like to express my dismay that a single person wants them kept. Will they complete the missing templates and add them to every player page? Slumgum T. C. 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definately make some, if required. I think we should get some people together t make them and put them on player articles. King fish erswift 10:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what he said? I mean I've heard of selective hearing, but really.... Philc _T^E_C^I 17:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good support to navigation.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pr Kwame Nkrumah.--imi2 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modify, I appreciate that all the information in the templates is also available in the body of the article, but I do feel that the templates give a good overview that is useful if a reader doesn't have time to go through the entire article. However, I completely agree that the templates as they stand provide too much clutter, and therefore defeat the purpose of summarising information. I saw somewhere, I think on the talk page for Wikiproject Football, that someone had worked out a way to make these templates collapsable. My opinion is that every play should have a collapsable template for every World Cup/Euro Championships/South American equivalent (if there is one), as well as a collapsable template for their current club squad number. These should be collapsed by default but the option to expand should be very clear. As far as I can tell, that would mean that even the most succesful player's templates would take up the room of around 2 of the current templates, assuming that player plays at three world cups and three euros and that the collapsable template takes up one third of the space of the current templates. If this is too much, then I am sure collapsable templates could be designed which only filled one half of the page width, but which were higher (when expanded) to allow enough room for all of the information. This would not be clutter, but a very clear and useful overview of the competitions that player has played in and, if the reader wants, of the players he played alongside. This sort of information has been very useful for me when working on the Pele article. --Jim (Talk) 18:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good support to navigation.-- Alex Feldstein 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral/Other

IMPORTANT I would like to bring to people's attention that these templates are wildly useful, and make navigating a lot easier. They also look great, not at all ugly, bloated, or cluttered; yet features a lot of information in a tiny box. So far, the only reasonable argument from the delete side has been the fact that if a player has been in 2+ Cups, a multitude of these templates would look bloated/ugly. Adding a hide/show feature, such as the one on Template:Europe, would be more than enough to remedy this situation. So I propose that the templates are kept, but are added a hide/show switch to the default one so they won't look bloated when there are 2+. There are many reasons to keep these, as they present information in an easily accessible way, which is a fundamental strength of Wikipedia itself. Also note that the only way to access the information these templates present are bloated pages that list every single team, with numerous images. It's ludicrous to force users to access this information from those pages alone, when we have a very nice, useful little method that virtually produces a masterful article. MonsterOfTheLake 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- That is completely POV. They are not definitively wildly useful, or make navigating a lot easier. They also do not necesarily look great they are ugly, bloated, and cluttered. The fact is this is not only about these templates, but keeping these will allow them to be made for anything, beofre you know it there will be squads for everything, UEFA, Champions LEague, Fa Cup, League Cup, Premiership, EUROs, copa america, AFC cup of nations, club world championship, super cups, federations cups, EURO qualifying squads, Wolrd Cup qualifying squads, and the fact is we dont need it. There is not need to navigate around the 1998 World Cup squad from David Beckham. If you want to see the squad, go to the article, squad article, it does not need to be copied onto 30 ither pages. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - The best example of this useless clutter can be seen at pages such as Paolo Maldini. Bruno18 18:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Someone added hide option on these template, but reverted. And someone created AC Milan 2003 Winning squad Template before and deleted. ALL squad template should standardized when to create. Should UEFA Euro 2008 squad will create? Need someone create Wiki policy. As previous log, i think keeping winning squad ans special team is ok. Like Jamaican and Trinidad and Tobago, their first World Cup also may be the last one.
  - the hide option is annoying to people with javascript as it shows a lot of random jibberish, and included in the original nomination is the inclusion of all potential other national team templates (any other competitions), as for club templates, that is a seperate matter for now, though the general consensus is for current club templates only. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The hide option is on the page of EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, as they are on the continent boxes. That argument is not valid at all. MonsterOfTheLake 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - o Template:Italy 2004 u21 squad, Template:Netherlands 2006 u21 squad should involved?. Matt86hk talk 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Leaning Delete all - There are good reasons for both keeping and deleting them but I still feel that neither side has presented a strong argument. However, pending a decision on this, certain historic national team squads have World Cup templates as well, such as those at the bottom of Johan_Cruijff's page, while others don't. This should probably be standardized for all articles--either keep the templates or get rid of them in all of the articles. I would also argue against getting rid of these templates for clubs' current players as a separate issue. --Palffy 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winning squads, Delete all others. The templates are very useful for navigating, but having loads on a page looks a mess, so we should just keep the most notable ones. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 08:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silly question - I clicked on three of them at random and they seem to be widely used. I'm only interested in football, not the other football, so I don't care that much ... but is the plan to replace them with a common template or just remove that information? I think that kind of navigational template is very useful and would hate to see the information go away. (I don't want to stand in the way of what you guys want to do, though, so put me down for neutral.) BigDT 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is there on the relevant articles, we are removing these duplicates of the information. None of these teams exist anymore, they are created for a single tournaments (a few weeks and disbanded) full squad lists are viewable on the team pages, and historical ones on the competitions they competed in. After discussion it was decided that we would limit it to one per page, the players current club squad. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is new! Template:Spain Squad 2002 World Cup & *Template:Portugal Squad 2002 World Cup Matt86hk talk 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the Keep reasons here are particularly poor. They amount to "I've clicked on one of these links, so they should all be kept" or are tantamount to saying "every competition a player has played in needs a template because they are inherently useful". The reason we are trying to get these templates deleted now is so that they are nipped in the bud before every competition does indeed have a template. We are already seeing such clutter as Template:2003 AC Milan Squad (did actually get deleted) and Template:Rangers F.C. greatest. If new editors go to their favourite player's page and see four of these templates I'd posit that there's a very high chance they'll think that adding more is a good idea. Templates can be good. Succession boxes can be good. However we don't need to see twenty of them on the same page. We don't want to see every medal ever awarded being treated in this way. Yes the World Cup is more important than most, but it still shouldn't clutter up thousands of pages other than the main World Cup competition pages. Someone said that you can't get from Walter Zenga to 1990 FIFA World Cup squads without a template. That's just using a poorly written Walter Zenga article as an excuse to clutter every other football article! aLii 12:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"That's just using a poorly written Walter Zenga article as an excuse to clutter every other football article"?? Try again, you might be luckier. It was stated that the information carried by the templates would be not lost with their deletion, since it is carried by articles like 1990 FIFA World Cup squads. Yet neither Zenga nor other players (exept an obscure US team member) are linked to that page; Even worse, that page is only linked to other list of squads! It looks like your arguments are rather 'poor.--Kwame Nkrumah 13:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Zenga article isn't linked to it because the editors of the article didn't think it important enough to write the squad link into the prose. Instead the actual tournament is linked. Most other players are linked similarly I guess, and from the World Cup page you can find all the information you could possibly want, including the squads.

My main problem with these templates is the precedent it sets. Where does it stop? The European Football Championship is pretty notable, so is the UEFA Champions League. Perhaps the FIFA Club World Cup? Plus all the "greatest team" type templates that are popping up. Sigh. aLii 21:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a new template for Football teams at Category talk:Football squad templates#Proposal. Hope this one be useful (it has Hide/Show option). Mxcatania 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.