Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19 edit

Template:Unbanned edit

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Arguments for deletion centered around the usefulness of the template. Modifications to the template were made, prompting two users to retract their "delete" comments. As it now stands, consensus points to keeping this template as long as it is used per the documentation. Airplaneman ✈ 05:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unbanned (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serves no practical purpose. There is no real reason to tag this page whenever a user has been unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The category included is currently in a CFD. /Hey Mid (contributions) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or userfy~~: This type of template is really a disclaimer, and it's not particularly appropriate to put a disclaimer on someone's userpage because they were once banned. I have no objection to it existing in userspace, but I don't think it's suitable for mainspace and I would object to it being placed on a user's userpage or user talk page by another editor. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I believe a userbox would be more appropriate here, since it encourages users who wish to identify themselves as having been previously banned, and is less prone to rather more contentious use (i.e. another user placing it on user/user talk pages of previously-banned users. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Preferably Beeblebrox's user space, since he was the original creator of the template. /Hey Mid (contributions) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really concerned whose userspace it is placed in; anyone who wants it, is welcome to it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what would be accomplished by moving it into my userspace. Either the template is contrary to policy, or it isn't. I don't think it is. Often when a user is banned {{banned}} becomes the only content of their user and/or talk pages. This is intended to replace that to indicate to one and all that the ban has been lifted or has expired. If the user wishes to remove it and replace it with something else they are more than welcome to do so. This seems like spill-over from the objections to the new category as opposed to a legitimate objection tho this template. I was considering creating a userbox as well for those who would like to display it, but I'm not real big on formatting that sort of thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well my theory behind moving it to userspace is that I would find it perfectly reasonable to use it on one's own user or user talk pages, and users could find it there on the off-chance that they wanted to use it for that purpose, but in mainspace it encourages its use to label users who have previously been banned, which I don't think is constructive. For the purpose for which I believe it would be appropriate, it'd be made redundant by a similar userbox, anyway. I have no objection to a userbox. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No opinion. - unnecessary (as it's recorded in the block log anyway) and not a good idea. This template strikes me as a badge of shame, intended to be placed on the userpages of unbanned users presumably indefinitely, to remind everyone who comes across them that they were once banned; and that seems highly contrary to the principles of forgiveness and giving someone a fresh start that unbanning should represent. If a user wishes to indicate on their own user page that they were once banned, that's their decision and they're free to do so, but we should not have a template for that purpose. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my view based on the modified template. I think it's now acceptable (as long as it's used in accordance with the documentation) - I still don't think it's really necessary, but I'm withdrawing my suggestion to delete. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a round tuit, for xeno

You know – for kids!

Keep - As long as we make it clear that the user being unbanned can remove it at any time, this template is useful as a replacement for {{banned}}. The alternative would be blanking their userpage. We have {{unblocked}} which functions in a similar manner. It would need to be made clear that it is not to be added to users who are already unbanned but are not displaying the template. It should only be added by the user themself (I see Jack has already decided to use this) or at the time of removing the ban template. Agree that the category discussion is entirely peripheral and should be discussed separately. –xeno^talk 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously, if it's made clear that this should only be used by the user themselves, then I have no issue with the template, though it does also strike me as a strange template for a user to choose to add to their own page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But would you object to administrators changing {{banned}} to {{unbanned}} when closing unban discussions favourably? –xeno^talk 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it places too much emphasis on the fact that they were banned, if it's designed to actually indicate that they have been unbanned (and presumably regained the trust of the community, at least to some extent). If it's rephrased to fit that purpose better, I would have no issue with the "banned" template being replaced with this one on unblock, to be removed by the user if and when desired. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, I'm only transcluding it for the moment, as all of this is under discussion. I do not much believe in transcluding things from outside my user space into it, as others are free to edit such things. And I despise userboxes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much (it doesn't really go with the decor), and meant to put a note "temporarily", but never got a round tuit. –xeno^talk 00:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here ya go; Play well, Jack Merridew 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep with xeno's tweak. --N Y Kevin @051, i.e. 00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that's the thing, there are all these accusations and criticisms going around that started literally minutes after the template and category were created. I never said this stuff was all perfect and polished, somehow I got this crazy idea that this was a collaborative website and that it didn't need to be perfect before being created because it could always be fixed later. I'd like to emphasize again, and this could be added to the templates talk page and documentation, that the purpose is to replace {{banned}} on the user and talk pages of users who have just been unbanned, similar to {{request accepted}} for blocked users. It is not intended to be added to the pages of everyone who has ever had a ban lifted. Sorry if that was not clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - much ado about nothing, and the Unblock template should suffice for the extremely rare situations in which this would be applicable. Risker (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblocked}} wouldn't serve quite the same purpose. –xeno^talk 15:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for pity's sake, if administrators are incapable of writing a personal "unban" message for the incredibly rare event in which someone is unbanned by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee, they need to be working on a project that is not primarily about words. These rare situations are worthy of individualized, personal commentary, not templates. The unblock template should work just fine, if administrators are so totally incapable of expressing themselves in their own words; after all, that is the action that an administrator is actually taking. This truly is much ado about nothing. Risker (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, this template was intended to replace {{banned}} commonly found on the user page, not as a "message to the user" on their talk page (e.g.) If you are going to opine delete, at least be sure that you are on the same page as the rest of us (perhaps you feel that it should simply be removed leaving a blank user page?). –xeno^talk 16:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why is it that {{unblocked}} does not suffice? --Bsherr (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked and unbanned are not quite synonymous, and one does not necessitate the other. The unblock notice indicates that a block has expired (and most blocks would be levied by an administrator in response to vandalism, edit warring, or something similar). An unban notice indicates that a community ban has been lifted, and that the community has given the user a second chance. Community bans are not always enforced by blocks, especially when the ban does not cover the whole of wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was informative. --Bsherr (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it serves no useful purpose. Whilst believing that some editors might like to voluntarily wear that lapel badge, I feel that it is certainly not the sort of tool for the creator to slap on previously banned users. The creator, being a sysop, ought to know better than to bait users being rehabilitated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's your contention that it would be baiting a user to replace {{banned}} with this template, which now includes a notice that they can remove it at any time? How is that? Nobody seems to actually be getting that point, it is only intended to be used to replace the banned template, it is not intended to be added to the page of anyone who has ever been unbanned, as I have now stated about five times. It's intended to be a sort of "welcome back" like {{request accepted}} for users that were merely blocked. I don't know why this is such a difficult point to understand for some users. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but it's 'a tag'. I tweaked it to cheer it up a bit. I don't want this stuff, myself. When I was initially unblocked, I rolled my own new notice. When the AC formally unbanned me, I cut the tags. Getting unbanned is about getting control back, and this isn't that. For about a year, I displayed several version of the following. This place is too hard-ass, sometimes, and not enough so other times. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a Street-Legal sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs – SUL – ec – fans – quotes

Comment I made a statement at WP:AN#New Category:Formerly banned users concerning the related category and am noting it here in case folks missed it, and for the 'record'. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've tweaked the tag some more to better reflect the original intention, and will add a not to the talk page about it's intended use. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changing from delete / userfy). The template in its new form is a useful and friendly template suitable for its purpose: admins unblocking users as a result of an unban discussion can substitute the former banned notice, and the user can remove it at will. My previous concerns have been addressed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is now also a documentation page at Template:Unbanned/doc that instructs users on how to properly use this template, including suggestions from this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tweaked the wording on the template and documentation, with no intended change in meaning. Now that Beeblebrox has provided documentation, are the usage notes in italics on the template itself still necessary? I'd have thought it better to keep the template itself uncluttered. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the sentence which states that it should not be placed on all formerly-banned users' pages, as that's made clear in the documentation, but left on the part which informs the user that it may be removed at any time by the unbanned user. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, good call. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not hurting anyone, and it serves a purpose to inform an editor that they have been unbanned. They may also be informed via a message on their talk page, but we have other templates which are substitutes for writing messages on people's talk pages, like {{uw-copyvio}}. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:42, 26 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Black Widow edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black Widow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An template about a character in comics that probably doesn't deserve her own template. Not really good at distinguishing the characters that it links to and why it's associated with the main character of the template.Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of these articles are not directly related to the character, and some don't even mention her. If it was reduced to just the articles directly about the character, there wouldn't be enough to justify a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm baffled by the make-up of the template especially "supporting characters". --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 → 06:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It just seems to be a hodge-podge of articles that are in Avengers or Iron Man templates. The appropriate articles will have those navboxes, so there's no need for this one. Spidey104^contribs 13:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best the bulk of this is tailored to a Marvel Comics-centric wiki. Within the scope here though there are a number of problems: navigating to non-existent articles; co-opting the term "Supporting characters" to cover "groups the character works with, characters the character shared a few stories with, and characters for which the character actually was a supporting character"; "Enemies" falling into a familiar pattern of "characters the subject fought once or twice"; including all spin-off media where the character is far from the primary focus. Removing the extraneous and tangential material leaves things more than adequately linked on the character articles. - J Greb (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I say leave it. Lg16spears (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that this navbox is used on a couple dozen pages, so if it gets deleted, those pages should get cleaned up simultaneously. Just about every page it is used on, however, has multiple navboxes (sometimes 5 or 6). I agree with the above comments that most of the links in the navbox have a tenuous connection to "Black Widow", and therefore this navbox is somewhat useless and irrelevant. SnottyWong ^talk 23:37, 26 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Kildare County F.C. squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kildare County F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club no longer exists therefore it does not have a current bun let alone a 'current squad'. Echetus Xe 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the nonexistence of the club means that it should be empty, and there's no point in having a navigational template with no links. I was tempted to delete this under G8, since it's dependent on something that no longer exists :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the club no longer exists. While deletion would unquestionably be non-controversial, sadly I can't see a tag for it. G8 is not applicable because the club's article is still here. --W F C-- 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Remove the template in all articles and tag it for G6. /Hey Mid (contributions) 09:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Heymid: G6 can be used for uncontroversial maintenance, and I believe this qualifies since it is uncontroversially a redundant category. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Are there any bots removing non-existing templates from articles? /Hey Mid (contributions) 11:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed User:SporkBot doing this with a template in the process of deletion for {{do not delete}}; the template is replaced with a noincluded "being deleted" notice, and all instances of its transclusion are removed before the template is actually deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:12, 26 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Cork City F.C. squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete as housekeeping, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cork City F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Club no longer exists and the club that replaced them has had a template created from scratch that is up to date (unlike this one). This template is not in use. Echetus Xe 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a case of housekeeping? I've tagged it for speedy deletion, G6. But yes, it should be deleted. /Hey Mid (contributions) 21:46, 19 August 2010 (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 section.

SharedIP for individual U.S military departments edit

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

The result of the discussion was condense to a single usage, which as a result of various deletions and substitutions, is {{SharedIP US military}}. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SharedIPUSAF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SharedIPUSArmy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SharedIPUSCG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SharedIPUSMC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SharedIPUSN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SharedIP US military (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:SharedIPUSAF, Template:SharedIPUSArmy, Template:SharedIPUSCG, Template:SharedIPUSMC, and Template:SharedIPUSN into Template:SharedIP US military.
The Shared IP template serves a functional purpose, and already includes a parameter for specifying exactly who the IP owner is. It's not intended to become a vanity plate. Though I respect the effort of the creator, and while I support, encourage, and delight in the template labeling of anonymous users as affiliated with the military, the proper place is on the user page. I'll even help them design the template. But this template is not for that purpose, and merging is warranted here. --Bsherr (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per nom, assuming the other templates can in fact contribute to the merge. If not, then just delete all except Template:SharedIP US military --N Y Kevin @055, i.e. 00:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~My intention to execute the "merge" is just to redirect the templates.~~ --Bsherr (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Due to the speedy deletions of some of these templates, {{SharedIP US military}} should be substituted for any remaining template transclusions, and then the templates should be deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, strong rationale given. --W F C-- 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and improve Template:SharedIPMIL. The problem with SharedIPMIL is that is not much different from Template:SharedIP, which makes me wonder if it wouldn't be too far out to just merge all of them into SharedIP. My idea was to attempt to make more distinguished templates for the IP types like we have with Template:SharedIPEDU, Template:MobileIP, and Template:SharedIPCORP. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely something to consider. I was thinking about the creation of a SharedIP for all government institutions, which I think are worth differentiating because of the far greater lieklihood compared to a private IP that it represents multiple users. Would you be willing to tag the templates at issue here (except SharedIPMIL) with {{db-g7}}? --Bsherr (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tagged all for deletion except SharedIPMIL and SharedIPUSAF (because SharedIPUSAF is in use). I've considered making a SharedIPGOV as well, the only reason I didn't is because there would surely be disputes as to which one to use in cases where more than one apply (i.e. do we use SharedIPMIL or SharedIPGOV for The Pentagon? SharedIPEDU or SharedIPGOV for the Department of Education? SharedIPCORP or SharedIPGOV for a county hospital?). If making such template, I strongly suggest using something like Vote.svg instead of Information icon.svg if making a SharedIPGOV. You could do as I did with SharedIPCORP, where I used the source code from SharedIPEDU on SharedIPCORP, only making minor changes to the wording and replacing the school house IP logo with a briefcase. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Closing admin, note that this is not relevant to this debate.) I would suggest that the MIL template be merged into GOV. DoE isn't an educational institution, would be GOV, as would county hospital. But if they wanted to be the other, it wouldn't matter much. The wonks around here would call attempts to offer guidance about that to be "instruction creep". --Bsherr (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I created Template:SharedIPGOV. I agree that MIL should be merged in with GOV. I recommend creating an SVG similar to the one used for SharedIPEDU's schoolhouse, only with an animated government building facade (I'm thinking along the lines of Wikiversity's logo, it kind of looks like a city hall). As for a county hospital, I personally believe it varies by location since US hospitals are more of a business even if government owned whereas Canadian and British hospitals are obviously government projects. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:57, 26 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Weston-super-Mare A.F.C. squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 18:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weston-super-Mare A.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out of date, never updated template for a club barely getting by in the Conference South. Only links two articles - don't be fooled by the three blue links, Andy Gurney is both a player and manager. Echetus Xe 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly maintained, and I'd argue for deletion even with three distinct blue links. --W F C-- 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:40, 23 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Solihull Moors F.C. squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solihull Moors F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seriously out of date Conference North template that links just two articles and seems to be updated primarily by me, which is once every year or so. Echetus Xe 14:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as the creator has vanished (see hist) and nominator is the only major contributor (there are a few isolated edits by others, but I don't think they should make a difference as to WP:G7). --N Y Kevin @062, i.e. 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NYKevin. --W F C-- 03:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:59, 20 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Havant & Waterlooville F.C. squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Havant & Waterlooville F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rarely used and updated, out of date Conference South template that only links three articles at present, one of which is the manager. Echetus Xe 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep As far as I can tell there should be six bluelinks on this (one of which is the manager). --W F C-- 03:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If its not going to be updated regularly then there isn't much point in it being there. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Argyle. Big Dom 09:37, 25 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Chasetown F.C. squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chasetown F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for a Northern Premier League Premier Division club that is rarely updated. I don't know if any of three three linked players are still at the club or if the template is accurate as I can't find a webpage that lists their current squad. Echetus Xe 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is clear is that there are a maximum of three bluelinked players, which doesn't justify a navbox IMO. --W F C-- 03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough bluelinks. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:04, 20 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Charlton Athletic L.F.C. squad edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charlton Athletic L.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is years out of date and does not currently link any articles. The blue links are past players who are no longer at the club and do not have the template. The club are no longer in the top division and are the only club at this level to have the template, some of the teams they compete with do not even have articles. Echetus Xe 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely unlikely to be of use unless they ever get promoted. --W F C-- 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:41, 23 August 2010 (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 section.